Hey! thank you in asvance for helping me, this is my second try today. I think I did bad :S
The writer on the article claims that people are not as concerned as before in regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese because an organic store sells now a selection of cheese, he also cites as evidence that the owners of a Beef restaurant are wealthier than the ones of a vegetarian dinner. I find this argument flawed due to faulty use of evidence and an incorrect line of reasoning.
The offering of several varieties of cheese in the Heart's Delight does not prove that people are not as concerned about their health as before. The fact that the stores sell these products doesn´t mean that everybody purchases and consumes them. We don't know how successful these products are. Moreover, people that follow a healthy life style with a balanced diet need proteins and fats as well as carbs, watching your diet does not mean eliminate these type of products at all.
On the other hand, the argument in which the author suggests that the owners of the New House of Beef are wealthier than the owners of the Good Earth Café due to the greatest demand of Beef is not well sound. First, there is no evidence that the wealth and money of the respective owners is generated through the restaurants, they may have other businesses or may have inherited the money. Second, we must take into account other factors that make a business successful such as the skill of the owners as businessmen or the marketing strategy of the restaurants. Finally, the author assumes that the only way of watching your diet is by eating vegetables and cutting meat and cheese, which is not only erroneous but also bad for health.
In conclusion, the author makes erroneous assumptions in order to make his claim and fails to consider other factors in the equation. There are other ways to find out if people are as concerned as before in regulating their intake of meat and cheese such as surveys to consumers or using a more representative sample of stores.
The writer on the article claims that people are not as concerned as before in regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese because an organic store sells now a selection of cheese, he also cites as evidence that the owners of a Beef restaurant are wealthier than the ones of a vegetarian dinner. I find this argument flawed due to faulty use of evidence and an incorrect line of reasoning.
The offering of several varieties of cheese in the Heart's Delight does not prove that people are not as concerned about their health as before. The fact that the stores sell these products doesn´t mean that everybody purchases and consumes them. We don't know how successful these products are. Moreover, people that follow a healthy life style with a balanced diet need proteins and fats as well as carbs, watching your diet does not mean eliminate these type of products at all.
On the other hand, the argument in which the author suggests that the owners of the New House of Beef are wealthier than the owners of the Good Earth Café due to the greatest demand of Beef is not well sound. First, there is no evidence that the wealth and money of the respective owners is generated through the restaurants, they may have other businesses or may have inherited the money. Second, we must take into account other factors that make a business successful such as the skill of the owners as businessmen or the marketing strategy of the restaurants. Finally, the author assumes that the only way of watching your diet is by eating vegetables and cutting meat and cheese, which is not only erroneous but also bad for health.
In conclusion, the author makes erroneous assumptions in order to make his claim and fails to consider other factors in the equation. There are other ways to find out if people are as concerned as before in regulating their intake of meat and cheese such as surveys to consumers or using a more representative sample of stores.
