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.
The argument that People are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses omit several concerns and key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated. The evidences cited in support of the argument are ill reasoned and do not demonstrate any correlation. Therefore, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that Heart's delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's, now sells a wide variety of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This statement is a stretch and does not make the argument convincing. The claim does not prove that people are not concerned with regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. For example,it could be that the sale of organic fruits and vegetables and whole grain flours is higher than ever before and corresponding sale of cheeses made with high butterfat content is at lowest. Without knowing which product is selling well and what people are preferring, it cannot be concluded that people are less concerned with regulating their intake of fatty cheeses. Hence, This claim does not make the argument convincing.
Second, the argument mentions that owners of Good Earth Cafe,an old vegetarian restaurant, still makes a modest living, but owners of new house of Beef are millionaires. This evidence does not demonstrate any correlation between people eating more meat today than they did in 1960's. For instance, Good earth cafe may not be doing so well because of poor service or bad quality food, on the other hand House of beef could be doing very well by providing customers with good quality meat and exceptional service. Thus, customers may be preferring House of beef. But they could also be eating vegetarian food at other restaurants, which provide better service and good quality food. Since the argument does not mention other things such as quality and service, the comparison between Good earth cafe and house of beef does not help to make the argument persuasive.
In conclusion, The argument could have been strengthened if it provided relevant facts and mentioned key factors to evaluate the situation. But in this case, the argument fails to prove that people are less concerned today about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.
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.
The argument that People are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses omit several concerns and key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated. The evidences cited in support of the argument are ill reasoned and do not demonstrate any correlation. Therefore, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument claims that Heart's delight, a store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in the 1960's, now sells a wide variety of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This statement is a stretch and does not make the argument convincing. The claim does not prove that people are not concerned with regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. For example,it could be that the sale of organic fruits and vegetables and whole grain flours is higher than ever before and corresponding sale of cheeses made with high butterfat content is at lowest. Without knowing which product is selling well and what people are preferring, it cannot be concluded that people are less concerned with regulating their intake of fatty cheeses. Hence, This claim does not make the argument convincing.
Second, the argument mentions that owners of Good Earth Cafe,an old vegetarian restaurant, still makes a modest living, but owners of new house of Beef are millionaires. This evidence does not demonstrate any correlation between people eating more meat today than they did in 1960's. For instance, Good earth cafe may not be doing so well because of poor service or bad quality food, on the other hand House of beef could be doing very well by providing customers with good quality meat and exceptional service. Thus, customers may be preferring House of beef. But they could also be eating vegetarian food at other restaurants, which provide better service and good quality food. Since the argument does not mention other things such as quality and service, the comparison between Good earth cafe and house of beef does not help to make the argument persuasive.
In conclusion, The argument could have been strengthened if it provided relevant facts and mentioned key factors to evaluate the situation. But in this case, the argument fails to prove that people are less concerned today about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.
