Question Statement:
The following appeared in magazine article on trends and lifestyle:
"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 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."
My AWA essay:
The argument that the owners of 'House of Beef' are millionaires omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument and is fundamentally flawed. The argument makes numerous unwarranted assumptions such as the owners of 'Good Earth Café' are modest because they sell vegetarian food, or that the owners of House of Beef are rich because they sell beef. The statements mentioned in the argument fail to provide substantial evidence or support to the author's claim.
One of the flaws in the argument is that the author assumes that House of Beef sells beef with high butter fat content. It states that people are now more concerned about their fat intake than they were a decade ago, inferring that they have decreased the amount of intake of high-fat red meat and butter. But, there is a possibility that the store might be selling beef with low fat content and hence is making so much profit.
Secondly, the argument states that the vegetarian restaurant is not making much money since it sells vegetarian food only, but there could be a possibility that the vegetarian food from 'Good Earth Café' has more fat content than the beef from 'House of Beef'. Also, since the vegetarian restaurant is an old one, the marketing strategies used might not be favoring the new requirements of the customers, and this could be one of the reasons that attributes to its low sales.
Thirdly, the argument also fails to explain why the customers should buy food from 'Heart's Delight'. Even though this store sells organic food such as fruits, vegetables and whole-grain flours, it also sells a wide range of cheese made of high butter fat, the cheese might be organic. This fact itself contradicts the logical argument that people have moved on to buy food with less fat content and hence might visit the store only for the organic food and not to buy the high fat cheese. Thus, the author fails to constitute a strong logical support to encourage the customers to buy from 'Heart's Delight' since the marketing strategies used are conflicting with the ideology behind the low-fat content food.
To address the problems in the argument, the author would have to close the logical gaps such as clearly mentioning if 'House of Beef' sells only low-fat content beef or that 'Good Earth Café' sells tasty, low-fat vegetarian food. Also, if the author wishes to promote 'Heart's Delight', he/she could clear the logical flaw that the cheese sold in this store is better than the one in 'House of Beef'. To sum up, the argument leaves out several key issues that do not logically provide much evidence to the author's claim. Hence, if the defects discussed above are fixed, the argument can sound more thorough and logically convincing.
The following appeared in magazine article on trends and lifestyle:
"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 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."
My AWA essay:
The argument that the owners of 'House of Beef' are millionaires omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument and is fundamentally flawed. The argument makes numerous unwarranted assumptions such as the owners of 'Good Earth Café' are modest because they sell vegetarian food, or that the owners of House of Beef are rich because they sell beef. The statements mentioned in the argument fail to provide substantial evidence or support to the author's claim.
One of the flaws in the argument is that the author assumes that House of Beef sells beef with high butter fat content. It states that people are now more concerned about their fat intake than they were a decade ago, inferring that they have decreased the amount of intake of high-fat red meat and butter. But, there is a possibility that the store might be selling beef with low fat content and hence is making so much profit.
Secondly, the argument states that the vegetarian restaurant is not making much money since it sells vegetarian food only, but there could be a possibility that the vegetarian food from 'Good Earth Café' has more fat content than the beef from 'House of Beef'. Also, since the vegetarian restaurant is an old one, the marketing strategies used might not be favoring the new requirements of the customers, and this could be one of the reasons that attributes to its low sales.
Thirdly, the argument also fails to explain why the customers should buy food from 'Heart's Delight'. Even though this store sells organic food such as fruits, vegetables and whole-grain flours, it also sells a wide range of cheese made of high butter fat, the cheese might be organic. This fact itself contradicts the logical argument that people have moved on to buy food with less fat content and hence might visit the store only for the organic food and not to buy the high fat cheese. Thus, the author fails to constitute a strong logical support to encourage the customers to buy from 'Heart's Delight' since the marketing strategies used are conflicting with the ideology behind the low-fat content food.
To address the problems in the argument, the author would have to close the logical gaps such as clearly mentioning if 'House of Beef' sells only low-fat content beef or that 'Good Earth Café' sells tasty, low-fat vegetarian food. Also, if the author wishes to promote 'Heart's Delight', he/she could clear the logical flaw that the cheese sold in this store is better than the one in 'House of Beef'. To sum up, the argument leaves out several key issues that do not logically provide much evidence to the author's claim. Hence, if the defects discussed above are fixed, the argument can sound more thorough and logically convincing.
