In-take of red meat and fatty cheeses - GMAT Prep essay

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:52 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:8 members
Hello,

Can you please review this essay? Thanks for your help.

Best Regards,
Sri


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 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."

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.


Response:


In this argument the author is saying that people in general nowadyas are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about controlling their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. He cites 3 examples to support his argument.

The first example is that of Heart's Delight, a store that way back in the 1960's started off by selling organic fruits and vegetables but now also sells rich cheeses. The second is that of Good Earth Cafe an old vegetarian restaurant whose owners are still making a modest living.
The third example is that of a new beef restaurant whose owners are millionaires.

Thought these are some valid examples which support the author's argument that people are not so much concerned these days about regulating their intake of meat and fatty cheeses, more information might be needed to fully ascertain this claim.

Heart's Delight might have started selling rich cheeses because many in the scientific community now believe that some amount of fat is important for the human body. Fruits and vegetables are great but they are mainly good for fiber, calcium and vitamins. Some amount of fat though is necessary for the human body to absorb calcium. Besides even the health pyramid recommends a moderate intake of dairy and cheese as a part of balanced diet. So it can be argued that Heart's Delight is in a way expanding its choices of healthy food items by including fatty cheeses thereby weakening the author's argument that people are not so much concerned these days about regulating their intake of meat and fatty cheeses.

In the case of Good Earth Cafe, it is quite possible that since it is an old vegetarian restaurant, their menu choices might have stayed the same since the time they were started. The fact that the owners of Good Earth Cafe are still making a modest living supports the fact that they probably have the same patrons frequenting their restaurant since the time the restaurant was founded. Hence it is quite possible that potential younger customers might be frequenting other vegetarian restaurants that offer a menu geared more towards the culinary tastes of the younger generation. Hence, this example does not necessarily strengthen the author's argument that people are not so much concerned these days about regulating their intake of meat and fatty cheeses.

The example of the new House of Beef restaurant whose owners are millionaires does lend a bit more strength to the author's argument. But then it can be due to the fact that beef sold in restaurants are in-general expensive and therefore the profit margins are a lot higher for restaurants that sell them. Besides since it is a new restaurant, it could be very well that it is probably just drawing more customers. Also, recent studies have shown that in many developed countries people are in-general trying to shy away from red meat.
Hence, this example by itself does not strengthen the authors argument that people are not so much concerned these days about regulating their intake of meat and fatty cheeses.

The author could strengthen his argument by presenting more solid examples/data showing that people these days are not so much concerned about their intake of meat and fatty cheeses.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Tue Aug 06, 2013 5:12 pm
Hi gmattestaker2,

This essay gets a 4 from me.

Strengths: you keep separate ideas in separate paragraphs, and keep your sentences grammatically written (though in need of some commas for clarity). You are organized with an introduction and conclusion as well, and keep your essay on topic the whole time.

Weaknesses: while you do a good job picking apart the specific examples provided by the author, you overlook the most major flaw in the author's argument: that these are just a few examples. The GMAT expects you to recognize representativeness flaws when they occur, and the fact that these three restaurants are claimed to be representative of the entire population's opinions is a major issue. Additionally, your inclusion of statistics goes beyond what's require; this essay wants you to focus on the author's reasoning, not the validity of his or her conclusions per se, so things like "recent studies" don't really belong. Finally, watch for wordy constructions. Phrases like "it could be very well that it is probably" are excessively complex and detract from your score.

Good job on this essay, and keep up the good work!
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage

Legendary Member
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:52 pm
Thanked: 11 times
Followed by:8 members

by gmattesttaker2 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:44 pm
KapTeacherEli wrote:Hi gmattestaker2,

This essay gets a 4 from me.

Strengths: you keep separate ideas in separate paragraphs, and keep your sentences grammatically written (though in need of some commas for clarity). You are organized with an introduction and conclusion as well, and keep your essay on topic the whole time.

Weaknesses: while you do a good job picking apart the specific examples provided by the author, you overlook the most major flaw in the author's argument: that these are just a few examples. The GMAT expects you to recognize representativeness flaws when they occur, and the fact that these three restaurants are claimed to be representative of the entire population's opinions is a major issue. Additionally, your inclusion of statistics goes beyond what's require; this essay wants you to focus on the author's reasoning, not the validity of his or her conclusions per se, so things like "recent studies" don't really belong. Finally, watch for wordy constructions. Phrases like "it could be very well that it is probably" are excessively complex and detract from your score.

Good job on this essay, and keep up the good work!

Hello Eli,

Hope all is well and thank you very much for taking time to go over my essay and for your excellent feedback and suggestions. I never thought of some of the points that you have mentioned like representativeness flaws and to avoid extra statistics. Thanks for the excellent link as well. It was very helpful. Thank you again for all your valuable time and help.

Best Regards,
Sri

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:05 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:8 members
GMAT Score:730

by vomhorizon » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:18 am
Could you also rate my attempt...

The Author claims that, "the people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses". In support of his claim, the author cites the large selection of cheeses in Heart's delight, which started off in the 1960's by selling organic fruits and vegetables. The author also cites the fact that the owners of House of Beef are Millionaire's while those of the Good earth café are not. Stated this way, the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and is unconvincing.

First, the author wrongly attributes the addition of cheeses at Heart's Delight to the general lowered level of concern that people may have towards fatty cheeses. The author does not make an effort to prove that the decision of Heart's delight to include cheese in its store was due to the fact that the demand for cheese has increased since it began operations. It could well be the case that the demand for good quality cheese may have existed even in the 1960's when Heart's Delight began operation, but the store was late to capitalize on the opportunity. Another possible explanation could be that a local cheese store just shut down, creating a void that Heart's delight filled by offering cheese to its customers.

Second, the author compares, without providing any background information, the financial condition of the Good Earth Café and House of Beef, and based on this concludes that the people's concern for fatty red meat must have diminished. Although one possible explanation for the financial disparity between the two establishments could be the increase demand for beef, an equally possible explanation could be that the Good Earth Café is simply not a good eatery, while the House of Beef is. The author fails to provide any supporting evidence, which can be used to further evaluate the financial disparity between the two establishments.

Finally, The author fails to refer to any statistics or data that can be used to draw generalized opinions regarding the trend of red meat or cheese consumption. By basing his entire argument on Heart's delight, Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef he fails to direct the reader towards the bigger picture. The Author could have presented a better argument by concentrating on the overall eating habits of a larger sample of the population rather than revolving his discussion around the above-mentioned establishments.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned facts and is therefore unconvincing. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author cited examples that were more relevant and clearly showed that people are less concerned about fatty cheeses and red meat then in the past.
"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you'll be successful." - Eric Thomas

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:00 pm
Thanked: 136 times
Followed by:62 members

by KapTeacherEli » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Great job vomhorizon, that essay gets a 5! It's well structured, well reasoned, and hits all of the points of flawed reasoning that an essay on this prompt should.

Make sure you're proofreading though. Lots of little errors in your text and examples of clunky or choppy phrasing make your reasoning harder to understand, keeping you off a six. I've made some suggestions on your opening paragraph, highlighted below in violet.
In the argument above, the author claims that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. In support of his claim, the author cites the large selection of cheeses in Heart's Delight, which started off in the 1960's by selling organic fruits and vegetables. The author also cites the fact that the owners of the House of Beef are millionaire's, while those of the Good Earth Café are not. Unfortunately, the argument contains poor logic and leaps of faith and is therefor unconvincing.
Hope this helps!
Eli Meyer
Kaplan GMAT Teacher
Cambridge, MA
www.kaptest.com/gmat

ImageImageImage

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:05 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:8 members
GMAT Score:730

by vomhorizon » Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:50 pm
Thanks ELI, I Wrote my GMAT yesterday, hoping to get a 5, just as i did when i took it for the first time.
"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you'll be successful." - Eric Thomas

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:32 pm

by MWJ » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:33 pm
Would you mind rating mine as well? I wrote a LOT of words. Spelled anecdotal wrong. Thanks everyone! This site is awesome!

In his magazine article, the author states that an organic store sells cheese with high fat-content and that a steakhouse is extremely profitable. Consequently, he concludes that people, in general, are less concerned than they used to be regarding their consumption of fatty cheese and red meat. The author's reasoning is extremely flawed. His evidence reflects a limited and biased sample size, his assumptions are unfounded, and he fails to accurately compare the public's previous and current perspective on health.

Firstly, the author's use of an example of a profitable steakhouse and an organic shop selling fatty cheese is inaccurate and not representative of people's behavior. While the steakhouse sells red meat and makes a lot of money, signaling that it is popular, it does not mean that people care less about their consumption of red meat. In fact, if the steakhouse's profits have remained constant over time, given a constant population, then it can be argued that people's consideration of their own health has not changed. If the author presented evidence that people were buying more steaks than before, his conclusion would have a better foundation to stand on. Rather, the author uses poor anectdotal evidence that struggles to support his argument. Furthermore, the fact that the Good Earth Cafe does not make a lot of money does not mean that people do not care about their intake of red meat or fatty cheese. Perhaps, this is a niche restaurant that few people have ever frequented. Thus, the author cannot generalize that people do not care about their consumption of these foods.

Secondly, the author is making a faulty comparison among consumer lifestyles over time without providing solid evidence of a change in perspective on red meat or fatty cheese. The author points to Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic foods in the 1960's and now has a vast array of fatty cheeses. The author's assumption that the people care less about their intake of fatty cheese because one store is selling fatty cheese is unfounded. If the author had provided evidence that Heart's Delight sells fatty cheese because it is in greater demand than before, then he would have solidified his argument. However, we are given no real information regarding people's concerns of health as related to fatty cheese in the past, nor in the present. Thus, making a comparison is impossible without any of the hard facts.

Lastly, the author mistakenly uses three stores to generalize behavior of the public at large. These three shops do not represent the workings of society at large. Actually, it is completely possible that the author chose these three sources because they fit his argument. There is a problem evident that his sample does not represent reality. In fact, over the past decade, consumers have become more health conscious, avoiding red meat and fatty cheeses. The media and advertisements point to a trend of health-conscious consumption on the part of the public. This is obvious due to the rise of health food shops around the world. Thus, people are more concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than ever before. They are aware of the health risks these foods pose. Therefore, the author's conclusion is entirely contradicted by this new evidence, which he overlooks by focusing specifically on only three stores. If the author had a larger sample size representative of society as a whole, his evidence would be more believable.

The author claims that people are less concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were ten years ago. His conclusion, nevertheless, is unfounded, his assumptions lack hard evidence, and the evidence he does utilize fails to accurately represent society as a whole. When considering such a general topic, the author would have improved his argument if he had made use of more global evidence. As is stands here, nonetheless, his conclusion fails to convince the critical reader.

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:32 pm

by MWJ » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:33 pm
Would you mind rating mine as well? I wrote a LOT of words. Spelled anecdotal wrong. Thanks everyone! This site is awesome!

In his magazine article, the author states that an organic store sells cheese with high fat-content and that a steakhouse is extremely profitable. Consequently, he concludes that people, in general, are less concerned than they used to be regarding their consumption of fatty cheese and red meat. The author's reasoning is extremely flawed. His evidence reflects a limited and biased sample size, his assumptions are unfounded, and he fails to accurately compare the public's previous and current perspective on health.

Firstly, the author's use of an example of a profitable steakhouse and an organic shop selling fatty cheese is inaccurate and not representative of people's behavior. While the steakhouse sells red meat and makes a lot of money, signaling that it is popular, it does not mean that people care less about their consumption of red meat. In fact, if the steakhouse's profits have remained constant over time, given a constant population, then it can be argued that people's consideration of their own health has not changed. If the author presented evidence that people were buying more steaks than before, his conclusion would have a better foundation to stand on. Rather, the author uses poor anectdotal evidence that struggles to support his argument. Furthermore, the fact that the Good Earth Cafe does not make a lot of money does not mean that people do not care about their intake of red meat or fatty cheese. Perhaps, this is a niche restaurant that few people have ever frequented. Thus, the author cannot generalize that people do not care about their consumption of these foods.

Secondly, the author is making a faulty comparison among consumer lifestyles over time without providing solid evidence of a change in perspective on red meat or fatty cheese. The author points to Heart's Delight, a store that started selling organic foods in the 1960's and now has a vast array of fatty cheeses. The author's assumption that the people care less about their intake of fatty cheese because one store is selling fatty cheese is unfounded. If the author had provided evidence that Heart's Delight sells fatty cheese because it is in greater demand than before, then he would have solidified his argument. However, we are given no real information regarding people's concerns of health as related to fatty cheese in the past, nor in the present. Thus, making a comparison is impossible without any of the hard facts.

Lastly, the author mistakenly uses three stores to generalize behavior of the public at large. These three shops do not represent the workings of society at large. Actually, it is completely possible that the author chose these three sources because they fit his argument. There is a problem evident that his sample does not represent reality. In fact, over the past decade, consumers have become more health conscious, avoiding red meat and fatty cheeses. The media and advertisements point to a trend of health-conscious consumption on the part of the public. This is obvious due to the rise of health food shops around the world. Thus, people are more concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than ever before. They are aware of the health risks these foods pose. Therefore, the author's conclusion is entirely contradicted by this new evidence, which he overlooks by focusing specifically on only three stores. If the author had a larger sample size representative of society as a whole, his evidence would be more believable.

The author claims that people are less concerned with their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses than they were ten years ago. His conclusion, nevertheless, is unfounded, his assumptions lack hard evidence, and the evidence he does utilize fails to accurately represent society as a whole. When considering such a general topic, the author would have improved his argument if he had made use of more global evidence. As is stands here, nonetheless, his conclusion fails to convince the critical reader.

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:49 am

by abhey04 » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:51 am
Please rate my essay too:

The author concludes that generally people nowdays are not as much concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses as they were a decade ago. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Also, the argument fails to take into account several factors, on the basis of which the it could be evaluated.

First, the author makes the error of hasty generalization. To illustrate, the author says that in Heart's Delight one will find a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. The variety of cheeses available would in no way imply that people buy such chesses. It is very much possible that all these cheeses were available a decade ago too. Therefore, more information is required to evaluate the claim. That is, if author had said that these cheeses are in more demand now than they were in demand a decade ago, or that more variety of cheeses are available now than they were available a decade ago, then the argument could be strengthened.

Another example that the author mentioned is that the new House of Beef owners are millionaires. Again, this claim is not enough to evaluate the conclusion. More data is required. Are all the beef stores faring well? Is house of Beef the only store that is doing well? Without the answers to such questions, the authors claim is just a stretch and nothing more.

Second, the author assumes that just because meet and fatty cheeses intake of people is more nowdays, people are not as much concerned about regulating their intake. This a false assumption. The author should have provided furhter proof to substantiate his claim. To illustrate, it is very much possible that people do fret over the exceeded intake but the advancement in biotechnology has made it possible for people to disgest fatty cheeses and be healthy as people were a decade ago. Had the auhtor provided more evidence to support his claim, for example by saying that there is no advancement in biotechonolgoy, or that on an average people have more fat inside their body, this argument could be strengthened.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the above mentioned reasons. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Without this information, the argument is weak and open to further debate.