-
ayushiiitm
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:35 am
- Location: Pune, India
- Thanked: 5 times
- GMAT Score:700
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
RESPONSE:
The argument states that the major increase in new cases of adult onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. So conclusively if the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by putting requisites on food manufacturers, the rate of adult- onset diabetes would be reduced. Although the argument seems to be well placed in terms of logic, and supporting statements, a thorough analysis of the premises, points out deep flaws in the reasoning.
Firstly, the argument does not take into account the presence of other factors such as increasing stress levels among people, changing lifestyles, food habits that have been claimed unanimously as more averse to health by medical practitioners than food content. The impact of these external factors, has been so large that there seems to be little impact of quality of food.
Secondly, if we look into the past, food quality has rather increased, as a result of better techniques, scientific innovations, best practices and increase in transparency in the system. So if the rise in the rate had been due to the nutrition in the food, results should have been the opposite. Today with rise in living standards, more people have access to quality food than before.
Thirdly, as stated in the premise that the government lacks control over the quality of food available at low prices and that has lead to increase in cases of adult onset diabetes. Thus, it assumes that high priced food contains requisite amount of nutrition, so it does not need to be put under government scan.
Also the argument fails to take into account the role of government backed food control and quality organizations that are already in place. These authorities, provide ample amount of scrutiny in issues related to food. An increase in scrutiny may lead to sabotage by increasing costs, increasing chances of illegal documentation and forgery.
In sum, we can state that if the argument adds some vital statistics to come to a conclusion, or at least takes into account the effect of other factors, it remains a weak argument, which is open to criticism at ease. Diabetes is not caused solely by the intake of foods that we take, like it may happen with some other short term sicknesses, rather, diabetes develops in one's body after prolonged exposure to averse conditions.
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
RESPONSE:
The argument states that the major increase in new cases of adult onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. So conclusively if the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by putting requisites on food manufacturers, the rate of adult- onset diabetes would be reduced. Although the argument seems to be well placed in terms of logic, and supporting statements, a thorough analysis of the premises, points out deep flaws in the reasoning.
Firstly, the argument does not take into account the presence of other factors such as increasing stress levels among people, changing lifestyles, food habits that have been claimed unanimously as more averse to health by medical practitioners than food content. The impact of these external factors, has been so large that there seems to be little impact of quality of food.
Secondly, if we look into the past, food quality has rather increased, as a result of better techniques, scientific innovations, best practices and increase in transparency in the system. So if the rise in the rate had been due to the nutrition in the food, results should have been the opposite. Today with rise in living standards, more people have access to quality food than before.
Thirdly, as stated in the premise that the government lacks control over the quality of food available at low prices and that has lead to increase in cases of adult onset diabetes. Thus, it assumes that high priced food contains requisite amount of nutrition, so it does not need to be put under government scan.
Also the argument fails to take into account the role of government backed food control and quality organizations that are already in place. These authorities, provide ample amount of scrutiny in issues related to food. An increase in scrutiny may lead to sabotage by increasing costs, increasing chances of illegal documentation and forgery.
In sum, we can state that if the argument adds some vital statistics to come to a conclusion, or at least takes into account the effect of other factors, it remains a weak argument, which is open to criticism at ease. Diabetes is not caused solely by the intake of foods that we take, like it may happen with some other short term sicknesses, rather, diabetes develops in one's body after prolonged exposure to averse conditions.
Success is a journey.....enjoy every moment of it
