-
theGoodLife
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:34 pm
- Location: Philadephia, PA
- Thanked: 2 times
- GMAT Score:660
Done within 30 min, 5 min prep, 20 writing, and 5 min proofreading.
"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 Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
response:
The author believes that people are not as conscious about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. Citing the fact that although Heart's Delight sell organic fruits and vegetables, they still sell a wide variety of cheeses made of high butterfat content. Also owners of the new House of Beef making millions as opposed to vegetarian restaurants making a modest living. Upon further analysis his argument's are based on assumptions that are not substantiated with evidence, therefore they prove to be invalid.
Firstly, the author's first assumption that the owners of the House of Beef make millions as opposed to their counterparts the Good Earth Cafe is indicative of the general population consciousness of health. There is no statistical evidence proving that the correlation of money made by the owners proves that the general population no longer take their health seriously. For example, the House of Beef could just make a higher profit margin, yet still be selling less than Good Earth Cafe.
Secondly, the author assumes that red meat is more popular than Good Earth Cafe because the owners of House of Beef are millionaires. The author fails to provide evidence that the owners are millionaires due to the sale of beef. Perhaps the owners were independently wealthy in some other venture prior to their purchase of the restaurant. Without evidence that directly connects the money made from purchases of meat it is hard to make this assumption.
Lastly, the author assumes that the general public are not conscious about their health because Heart's Delight still offer a variety of high butterfat cheeses. Without stating the facts on whether or not the general public is purchasing high butterfat cheeses in higher quantities then a decade prior, no judgement can be made on whether or not people are concerned about their health. For example, the cheeses could still be sold for people who like to treat themselves once in a while to cheese or they're sold for parties on occasion. This is not to say that the general public are unconscious about their health and gorging on high fat cheeses.
In conclusion, although the author's argument is well written and concise, it fails to provide evidence to prove his assumptions. Using the evidence cited above it is clear that the author's argument is invalid.
"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 Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
response:
The author believes that people are not as conscious about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. Citing the fact that although Heart's Delight sell organic fruits and vegetables, they still sell a wide variety of cheeses made of high butterfat content. Also owners of the new House of Beef making millions as opposed to vegetarian restaurants making a modest living. Upon further analysis his argument's are based on assumptions that are not substantiated with evidence, therefore they prove to be invalid.
Firstly, the author's first assumption that the owners of the House of Beef make millions as opposed to their counterparts the Good Earth Cafe is indicative of the general population consciousness of health. There is no statistical evidence proving that the correlation of money made by the owners proves that the general population no longer take their health seriously. For example, the House of Beef could just make a higher profit margin, yet still be selling less than Good Earth Cafe.
Secondly, the author assumes that red meat is more popular than Good Earth Cafe because the owners of House of Beef are millionaires. The author fails to provide evidence that the owners are millionaires due to the sale of beef. Perhaps the owners were independently wealthy in some other venture prior to their purchase of the restaurant. Without evidence that directly connects the money made from purchases of meat it is hard to make this assumption.
Lastly, the author assumes that the general public are not conscious about their health because Heart's Delight still offer a variety of high butterfat cheeses. Without stating the facts on whether or not the general public is purchasing high butterfat cheeses in higher quantities then a decade prior, no judgement can be made on whether or not people are concerned about their health. For example, the cheeses could still be sold for people who like to treat themselves once in a while to cheese or they're sold for parties on occasion. This is not to say that the general public are unconscious about their health and gorging on high fat cheeses.
In conclusion, although the author's argument is well written and concise, it fails to provide evidence to prove his assumptions. Using the evidence cited above it is clear that the author's argument is invalid.
