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 wholegrain 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."
Analysis:
The argument states that, Walk into the heart's delight which started in 1960's by selling organic fruits and vegetables has started selling cheeses also now. Also, the owners House of beef are millionaires now, even though the owners Good Earth Café are making a modest living. In the preceding statement the author claims that " people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses". Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept is argument as valid.
The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author claims that what happened a decade ago is not happening now, for eg: the intake of red meat and cheeses may be less compared to now, because it is possible that during that time both may not be available as they are now. Also, the comparison made between different stores and café's cannot be considered as true, for eg: the store may have added cheeses, because people may be asking about organic cheese etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that since the intake of red meat and cheeses is higher that it was a decade ago, people were more concerned about consuming meat and cheese in the past while there can be several factors for which people didn't consume meat and cheese, for instance, cheese may not be available as it is now and meat would be not available as it is now. Furthermore, the assumption made that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because they sell meat and the owners of Good Earth Café make a modest living may not be a necessary point to indicate that selling meat makes one a millionare and selling vegetarian food does not. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide explication of links between meat and cheese consumption decade ago to now he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issue's with his premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can provide more examples to support his argument. He can state some facts as to why meat and cheese consumtion is high than before. Also, he can give examples as to why Good Earth Café is making a modest living for eg: they may be happy with how much they are earning and may not be interested in spending. Moreover, the owners of the new House of Beef may be millionaires even before they started house of beef etc. Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumption that render is conclusion invalid. The author could provide more examples like why . Walk into the Heart's Delight store has introduced cheese and Good Earth Café is making a modest living may be for some other reasons and not because it's a vegetarian restaurant etc. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, the author's poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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 wholegrain 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."
Analysis:
The argument states that, Walk into the heart's delight which started in 1960's by selling organic fruits and vegetables has started selling cheeses also now. Also, the owners House of beef are millionaires now, even though the owners Good Earth Café are making a modest living. In the preceding statement the author claims that " people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses". Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept is argument as valid.
The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author claims that what happened a decade ago is not happening now, for eg: the intake of red meat and cheeses may be less compared to now, because it is possible that during that time both may not be available as they are now. Also, the comparison made between different stores and café's cannot be considered as true, for eg: the store may have added cheeses, because people may be asking about organic cheese etc. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that since the intake of red meat and cheeses is higher that it was a decade ago, people were more concerned about consuming meat and cheese in the past while there can be several factors for which people didn't consume meat and cheese, for instance, cheese may not be available as it is now and meat would be not available as it is now. Furthermore, the assumption made that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because they sell meat and the owners of Good Earth Café make a modest living may not be a necessary point to indicate that selling meat makes one a millionare and selling vegetarian food does not. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide explication of links between meat and cheese consumption decade ago to now he assumes exists.
While the author does have some key issue's with his premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can provide more examples to support his argument. He can state some facts as to why meat and cheese consumtion is high than before. Also, he can give examples as to why Good Earth Café is making a modest living for eg: they may be happy with how much they are earning and may not be interested in spending. Moreover, the owners of the new House of Beef may be millionaires even before they started house of beef etc. Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumption that render is conclusion invalid. The author could provide more examples like why . Walk into the Heart's Delight store has introduced cheese and Good Earth Café is making a modest living may be for some other reasons and not because it's a vegetarian restaurant etc. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, the author's poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
