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 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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
RESPONSE:
"This article makes a broad statement and then tries to justify this statement by providing a few examples supporting it. The article hypothesizes that in general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The article then goes on to give three examples that are intended to support its hypothesis. These examples are of three different establishments that have had varying degrees of success. The article suggests that this parity in success is solely based on the products the establishments sell. It is stated that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires and suggests that this is due to the shift in consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses.
There are a whole multitude of flaws with this argument. To begin with, the article suggests that it is solely due to the different products that a shop sells that determines its degree of success (measured in monetary gain). The argument does not look at the relative price of goods, and in futher detail, the profit margin associated with each good sold. It may as well be that Heart's Delight and Good Earth Cafe sell a lot more product than House of Beef, but that House of Beef makes a larger profit per unit of product sold. The article does not look into who is buying products from these establishments. It might be that the House of Beef is selling its product to restaraunts and/or catering services that purchase bulk quantities of red meat. Heart's Delight and Good Earth Cafe might only be involved in the individual consumer market. This could cause a large disparity between revenue streams and consequnetly net income. Drawing off this previous flaw mentioned, the article does not state who the end consumer of the product is. House of Beef might sell a larger quantity of its product, but that does not mean that the entities purchasing this product are the defined end consumers of it. Lastly, the article has a very small sample size that is not nearly large enough to make broad, generalized statements about a large populations consumtion habits.
If the artice aims to make a statement about the general consumption changes of a large population, a much larger sample size is required. The author could survery the quanities sold, profit margins per product category and end consumption habbits of a larger section of population. Using these three indicators, the author might be credible enough to make a claim that in general, people are consuming more red meat and fatty cheeses. It is important to understand the supply and demand aspects of a consumer goods. The article makes a comparison between two different time periods. There could be large differences in consumption habbits, technological development and even nutritional benefits between products produced in different time periods.
While the article is ambitious, it lacks overall scope, resolution and economic analysis in evaluating an argument. "
NOTES:
- I need to improve on my timing. I did not get to proof read the entire response before time elapsed
- I am aware of the spelling errors (due to not proof reading)
- Please give me a score out of 6 and any critique that you might have
Thanks!
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
RESPONSE:
"This article makes a broad statement and then tries to justify this statement by providing a few examples supporting it. The article hypothesizes that in general, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. The article then goes on to give three examples that are intended to support its hypothesis. These examples are of three different establishments that have had varying degrees of success. The article suggests that this parity in success is solely based on the products the establishments sell. It is stated that the owners of House of Beef are millionaires and suggests that this is due to the shift in consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses.
There are a whole multitude of flaws with this argument. To begin with, the article suggests that it is solely due to the different products that a shop sells that determines its degree of success (measured in monetary gain). The argument does not look at the relative price of goods, and in futher detail, the profit margin associated with each good sold. It may as well be that Heart's Delight and Good Earth Cafe sell a lot more product than House of Beef, but that House of Beef makes a larger profit per unit of product sold. The article does not look into who is buying products from these establishments. It might be that the House of Beef is selling its product to restaraunts and/or catering services that purchase bulk quantities of red meat. Heart's Delight and Good Earth Cafe might only be involved in the individual consumer market. This could cause a large disparity between revenue streams and consequnetly net income. Drawing off this previous flaw mentioned, the article does not state who the end consumer of the product is. House of Beef might sell a larger quantity of its product, but that does not mean that the entities purchasing this product are the defined end consumers of it. Lastly, the article has a very small sample size that is not nearly large enough to make broad, generalized statements about a large populations consumtion habits.
If the artice aims to make a statement about the general consumption changes of a large population, a much larger sample size is required. The author could survery the quanities sold, profit margins per product category and end consumption habbits of a larger section of population. Using these three indicators, the author might be credible enough to make a claim that in general, people are consuming more red meat and fatty cheeses. It is important to understand the supply and demand aspects of a consumer goods. The article makes a comparison between two different time periods. There could be large differences in consumption habbits, technological development and even nutritional benefits between products produced in different time periods.
While the article is ambitious, it lacks overall scope, resolution and economic analysis in evaluating an argument. "
NOTES:
- I need to improve on my timing. I did not get to proof read the entire response before time elapsed
- I am aware of the spelling errors (due to not proof reading)
- Please give me a score out of 6 and any critique that you might have
Thanks!
