Hi, please help to rate or give some comments on my essays. Thanks so much!
ANALYSIS OF AN ARGUMENT
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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
=======
The article claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, and used a few examples to support his claim. I do not find his argument convincing because of some flaws which I will discuss below.
First, the writer is trying to make a comparison between people's current attitude towards their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and that a decade ago. In two out of the three examples that he cited, there was no mention of their situation a decade ago. Was Heart's Delight already selling a wide selection of cheeses a decade ago? On the same note, was Good Earth Cafe only making a modest living a decade ago? Also, the three examples that he cited cannot be representative of the whole society. Were there more restaurants/ stores selling red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago? What was the population's overall intake of red meat and fatty cheeses now compared to a decade ago?
Second, the writer cites that Heart's Delight sells a wide selection of cheeses with high butterfat content and uses this to back his argument. However, we are not given any information on whether these cheeses are popular among the customers. Were the organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flour bigger reasons for customers to patronise Heart's Delight?
Third, the writer mentioned that the owners of House of Beef were millionaires. However, we have no knowledge of how the owners made their fortune. Was it only through House of Beef or did they have other businesses?
Fourth, the writer mentioned that the owners of Good Earth Cafe were only making a modest living. However, there is no analysis to prove that business is only doing modestly because people were not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. People who are careful about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses do not necessarily have to only eat vegetarian food. Also, could there be other reasons why Good Earth Cafe is not successful? Such as poor quality of food, low standards of hygiene, lack of effective marketing etc?
In conclusion, I think the writer would be able to make his argument more convincing if he can give us more information about the population's overall intake of red meat and fatty cheeses now and a decade back. If he still wants to cite Heart's Delight, House of Beef and Good Earth Cafe, he should explain clearly why he thinks they are representative examples. Also, he should conduct a detailed study on the three stores' business to show that people's lack of concern towards regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses is the sole reason for their success/ failure.
ANALYSIS OF AN ISSUE
"A business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services; customers should have the responsibility of gathering information about the products or services they may want to buy."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
========
I disagree with the statement that a business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services, and that responsibility should lie with customers instead.
First, businesses cannot assume that every consumer has the ability and resources to do their own research. Even the most basic research such as a Google search requires the consumer to have access to the internet and be familiar with using a computer. For example, how can it be fair to expect an elderly and uneducated person buying a water heater to be knowledgeable about it? If for example, the water heater will explode if it is used for more than 8 hours consecutively, is it not only fair that the customer be informed about it?
Second, even if we make the far-fetched assumption that all consumers have the ability and resources to do some basic research, there is some information that will only be available to someone who possesses specific knowledge. Take the example of a weight loss pill. A non-medical professional would not be privy to the information that the pill could have dangerous side effects such as kidney failure. Failing to include this information together with the pill could lead to serious or even fatal consequences for consumers. Another example could be a financial product. It is not fair for the company selling the product to assume that all consumers would know exactly how the product works. It is only right to disclose all information about it so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Third, there should be no reason for businesses not to completely disclose information if they believe that their products or services are good. Relieving businesses of the responsibility of disclosing information would mean that businesses no longer have to be concerned about whether there are any negative side effects of their products or services. No more extensive research would be required. This would have very serious implications on society.
In conclusion, while customers should do their own research to ensure they are getting the best products or services to suit their needs, it is not socially responsible for businesses to push away that responsibility completely to the extent that it does not need to provide customers with complete information about its products or services. Since businesses make money from consumers, it is only right for them to have a responsibility towards them.
ANALYSIS OF AN ARGUMENT
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 Café, an old vegetarian restaurant, are still making a modest living, but the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
=======
The article claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, and used a few examples to support his claim. I do not find his argument convincing because of some flaws which I will discuss below.
First, the writer is trying to make a comparison between people's current attitude towards their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses and that a decade ago. In two out of the three examples that he cited, there was no mention of their situation a decade ago. Was Heart's Delight already selling a wide selection of cheeses a decade ago? On the same note, was Good Earth Cafe only making a modest living a decade ago? Also, the three examples that he cited cannot be representative of the whole society. Were there more restaurants/ stores selling red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago? What was the population's overall intake of red meat and fatty cheeses now compared to a decade ago?
Second, the writer cites that Heart's Delight sells a wide selection of cheeses with high butterfat content and uses this to back his argument. However, we are not given any information on whether these cheeses are popular among the customers. Were the organic fruits and vegetables and whole-grain flour bigger reasons for customers to patronise Heart's Delight?
Third, the writer mentioned that the owners of House of Beef were millionaires. However, we have no knowledge of how the owners made their fortune. Was it only through House of Beef or did they have other businesses?
Fourth, the writer mentioned that the owners of Good Earth Cafe were only making a modest living. However, there is no analysis to prove that business is only doing modestly because people were not as concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. People who are careful about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses do not necessarily have to only eat vegetarian food. Also, could there be other reasons why Good Earth Cafe is not successful? Such as poor quality of food, low standards of hygiene, lack of effective marketing etc?
In conclusion, I think the writer would be able to make his argument more convincing if he can give us more information about the population's overall intake of red meat and fatty cheeses now and a decade back. If he still wants to cite Heart's Delight, House of Beef and Good Earth Cafe, he should explain clearly why he thinks they are representative examples. Also, he should conduct a detailed study on the three stores' business to show that people's lack of concern towards regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses is the sole reason for their success/ failure.
ANALYSIS OF AN ISSUE
"A business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services; customers should have the responsibility of gathering information about the products or services they may want to buy."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
========
I disagree with the statement that a business should not be held responsible for providing customers with complete information about its products or services, and that responsibility should lie with customers instead.
First, businesses cannot assume that every consumer has the ability and resources to do their own research. Even the most basic research such as a Google search requires the consumer to have access to the internet and be familiar with using a computer. For example, how can it be fair to expect an elderly and uneducated person buying a water heater to be knowledgeable about it? If for example, the water heater will explode if it is used for more than 8 hours consecutively, is it not only fair that the customer be informed about it?
Second, even if we make the far-fetched assumption that all consumers have the ability and resources to do some basic research, there is some information that will only be available to someone who possesses specific knowledge. Take the example of a weight loss pill. A non-medical professional would not be privy to the information that the pill could have dangerous side effects such as kidney failure. Failing to include this information together with the pill could lead to serious or even fatal consequences for consumers. Another example could be a financial product. It is not fair for the company selling the product to assume that all consumers would know exactly how the product works. It is only right to disclose all information about it so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Third, there should be no reason for businesses not to completely disclose information if they believe that their products or services are good. Relieving businesses of the responsibility of disclosing information would mean that businesses no longer have to be concerned about whether there are any negative side effects of their products or services. No more extensive research would be required. This would have very serious implications on society.
In conclusion, while customers should do their own research to ensure they are getting the best products or services to suit their needs, it is not socially responsible for businesses to push away that responsibility completely to the extent that it does not need to provide customers with complete information about its products or services. Since businesses make money from consumers, it is only right for them to have a responsibility towards them.
