Please rate my essay...!!

[asherkunal]

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.

The argument claims that people these days have stopped regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, as compared to a decade ago. Stated in this way, the argument is flawed as it fails to mention the key factors based on which the conclusion has been drawn. THe conclusion is drawn purely on assumptions with no clear evidence. This makes the argument weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument begins with the words 'In general.' The usage of these words pulls a shadow over the actual scenario of the argument. It begins by showing how vague the initial statement is. There is no mention of any statistics based on which a conclusion can be drawn. Putting in some values on the number of people regulating their diets, or in particular on red meat and fatty cheeses a decade ago to now would shed some light and give some weight to the conclusion.
The author then continues by mentioning a few businesses and some very random facts about them. The author mentions that the Heart's Delight store that started selling organic fruits and vegetables and whole grain flours in 1960's also has a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. This statement is very vague and unconvincing. It fails to shed light on the fact that people today do not regulate their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. Heart's Delight Store does sell cheeses, but it also sells fruits and vegetables. There is no mention on the sales of the two commodities in question. Maybe the store decided to increase it's range of products after having bloomed in business before. These are just some of the factors that have not been considered in concluding this argument.
The argument then mentions the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant and compares it to the House of Beef across the street. Making a modest living, the Good Earth Cafe still seems to be surviving. Several factors need to be mentioned here. Is there no change or betterment in the services or quality of food at this Cafe? Or have the owners changed, making the crowd shift elsewhere? On the other hand, the owners of the NEW House of Beef are millionaires. This statement definately proves that the owners have not become millionaires off the earning of the new venture. Hence this statement is irrelevant to the argument.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts. This would make the argument more sound and concrete.