**This is my first attempt of an AWA, please rate this essay and any feedback will be appreciated. **
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles.
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Caf'e, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
In this argument, it states that modern people are consuming more amount of red meat and fatty cheeses compared to they used back in the 1960's. This conclusion is under premise of that an organic fruits and vegetables store now stock a wide range of fatty and a beef store makes lot of money, while the vegetarian store across the road still remains modest living. The supporting evidence used is highly irrelevant and inadequate in order to bolster this article.
First, it is not clearly explained how increase in demands simply leads to lack of concern. It might be true that recently, people are demanding more red meats and highly fat cheeses compared to in the 1960's. However, this doesn't mean they not looking after their health. In fact, it is actually vital to ensure adequate iron, protein and fat intake for main body functions and these are rich in red meats and cheeses. Moreover, population suffered more from poverty and hunger back in the 1960's due to shortage of food availability in comparison to present. Therefore, not only the improved food availability has saved the world from poverty but also keep us healthy with nutritious foods.
Secondly, the author used a term; 'In general' in order to support his or her main statement, which is not specific at all and has no credibility of the information provided. For example, three retail shops don't represent the trend of people's lifestyle in the entire world. Especially, the location of these stores is limited in to one place as well as failed to notify the demographical range. Far more number of stores needs to be taken in account all over the countries for statistically stable and accurate results. Therefore, the term used 'In general' does not qualify in this case.
Finally, the three supporting points are highly irrelevant to its claim as the organic store might have decided to expand its dairy food range in order to attract more customers on top of the ones from fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, the beef house might be much more bigger than the vegetarian restaurant which caused significant different in their profits. The aim was to analyse trend of people's lifestyle that requires close observation of individual consumption. Hence, outcome from the irrelevant measurements should not contribute towards the conclusion.
To sum up, this statement is highly flawed due to its irrelevant and poor quality of the evidence. Proper statistical figures must be obtained through reasonable time to bolster its argument. Thus, this article has failed to convince the audience that recent people are careless in terms of their consumption of red meats and high fat cheeses compared to in the 1960s.
The following appeared in a magazine article on trends and lifestyles.
"In general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Walk into the Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flours in the 1960's, and you will also find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. Next door, the owners of the Good Earth Caf'e, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
In this argument, it states that modern people are consuming more amount of red meat and fatty cheeses compared to they used back in the 1960's. This conclusion is under premise of that an organic fruits and vegetables store now stock a wide range of fatty and a beef store makes lot of money, while the vegetarian store across the road still remains modest living. The supporting evidence used is highly irrelevant and inadequate in order to bolster this article.
First, it is not clearly explained how increase in demands simply leads to lack of concern. It might be true that recently, people are demanding more red meats and highly fat cheeses compared to in the 1960's. However, this doesn't mean they not looking after their health. In fact, it is actually vital to ensure adequate iron, protein and fat intake for main body functions and these are rich in red meats and cheeses. Moreover, population suffered more from poverty and hunger back in the 1960's due to shortage of food availability in comparison to present. Therefore, not only the improved food availability has saved the world from poverty but also keep us healthy with nutritious foods.
Secondly, the author used a term; 'In general' in order to support his or her main statement, which is not specific at all and has no credibility of the information provided. For example, three retail shops don't represent the trend of people's lifestyle in the entire world. Especially, the location of these stores is limited in to one place as well as failed to notify the demographical range. Far more number of stores needs to be taken in account all over the countries for statistically stable and accurate results. Therefore, the term used 'In general' does not qualify in this case.
Finally, the three supporting points are highly irrelevant to its claim as the organic store might have decided to expand its dairy food range in order to attract more customers on top of the ones from fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, the beef house might be much more bigger than the vegetarian restaurant which caused significant different in their profits. The aim was to analyse trend of people's lifestyle that requires close observation of individual consumption. Hence, outcome from the irrelevant measurements should not contribute towards the conclusion.
To sum up, this statement is highly flawed due to its irrelevant and poor quality of the evidence. Proper statistical figures must be obtained through reasonable time to bolster its argument. Thus, this article has failed to convince the audience that recent people are careless in terms of their consumption of red meats and high fat cheeses compared to in the 1960s.
