Thanks in advance, I really appreciate any and all constructive criticism!
Prompt:
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.
In the passage above, the author draws on several examples to argue that the population is not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Regardless of whether or not the author is ultimately correct, his argument is based on an unsubstantiated premises and lacks evidence. Because of the author's poor reasoning and failure to provide crucial details, we cannot accept his argument.
The primary piece of support that the author gives is based on the contents of the Walk into the Heart's Delight grocery store. He states the store started selling organic fruits and vegetables and now sells cheeses with a high butterfat content. Unfortunately, the author fails to provide the necessary evidence to connect this statement to his arguement. The author mentions the store originated selling fruits, vegetables, and flours in the 1960s, but he does not mention how much, if any, cheese and meat was stocked in the 1960s. Without this information, the reader is unable to compare this decade to the previous decade. Even if the author did provide this information, the 1960s were not a decade ago, so we cannot use this information to evaluate his argument.
When discussing the grocery store, the author does not provide the necessary analysis to apply general trends to his argument about regulating intake. It is interesting to know that the grocery store sells fatty cheese, but the author provides no hard figures regarding the quantity of cheese purchased per capita. Simply knowing that one grocery store sells cheese does not prove anything regarding individual consumption. Finally, the author should provide a larger sample size of grocery stores. What if the grocery store in question is one that primarily promotes a diet rich in cheese and milk? It would behoove the author to included statistics regarding the quantity of cheese purchased per shopper in this decade versus last decade at a larger sampling of stores.
The secondary piece of support the author provides is the fact that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe have less money than the owners of the House of Beef. The author assumes that the reason for this discrepancy is how much meat and cheese is served, and this assumption lacks evidence. Perhaps the Good Earth Cafe is not faring well because of other reasons, such as poor management, poor food quality, or an unappetizing menu. Additionally, the author fails to provide evidence that one restaurant serves more meat and cheese than another. Although one would assume that a vegetarian restaurant does not serve meat, they could serve cheese; in fact, many vegetarian restaurants rely more heavily on cheese than a steakhouse does.
There is a plethora of detail the author could provide to strengthen his argument. He could provide surveys regarding individual dietary preferences during this decade and compare it preference data from the last decade. He could sample a larger variety of restaurants and grocery stores in a larger geographic area in place of a biased anecdote. Finally, he could delve into causes of success and failure for restaurants do not serve meat and cheese. Unfortunately, without such evidence and analysis, the author's argument is woefully incomplete and we cannot accept it as it stands.
Prompt:
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.
In the passage above, the author draws on several examples to argue that the population is not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Regardless of whether or not the author is ultimately correct, his argument is based on an unsubstantiated premises and lacks evidence. Because of the author's poor reasoning and failure to provide crucial details, we cannot accept his argument.
The primary piece of support that the author gives is based on the contents of the Walk into the Heart's Delight grocery store. He states the store started selling organic fruits and vegetables and now sells cheeses with a high butterfat content. Unfortunately, the author fails to provide the necessary evidence to connect this statement to his arguement. The author mentions the store originated selling fruits, vegetables, and flours in the 1960s, but he does not mention how much, if any, cheese and meat was stocked in the 1960s. Without this information, the reader is unable to compare this decade to the previous decade. Even if the author did provide this information, the 1960s were not a decade ago, so we cannot use this information to evaluate his argument.
When discussing the grocery store, the author does not provide the necessary analysis to apply general trends to his argument about regulating intake. It is interesting to know that the grocery store sells fatty cheese, but the author provides no hard figures regarding the quantity of cheese purchased per capita. Simply knowing that one grocery store sells cheese does not prove anything regarding individual consumption. Finally, the author should provide a larger sample size of grocery stores. What if the grocery store in question is one that primarily promotes a diet rich in cheese and milk? It would behoove the author to included statistics regarding the quantity of cheese purchased per shopper in this decade versus last decade at a larger sampling of stores.
The secondary piece of support the author provides is the fact that the owners of the Good Earth Cafe have less money than the owners of the House of Beef. The author assumes that the reason for this discrepancy is how much meat and cheese is served, and this assumption lacks evidence. Perhaps the Good Earth Cafe is not faring well because of other reasons, such as poor management, poor food quality, or an unappetizing menu. Additionally, the author fails to provide evidence that one restaurant serves more meat and cheese than another. Although one would assume that a vegetarian restaurant does not serve meat, they could serve cheese; in fact, many vegetarian restaurants rely more heavily on cheese than a steakhouse does.
There is a plethora of detail the author could provide to strengthen his argument. He could provide surveys regarding individual dietary preferences during this decade and compare it preference data from the last decade. He could sample a larger variety of restaurants and grocery stores in a larger geographic area in place of a biased anecdote. Finally, he could delve into causes of success and failure for restaurants do not serve meat and cheese. Unfortunately, without such evidence and analysis, the author's argument is woefully incomplete and we cannot accept it as it stands.
