Pls comment on this argument.

[petepete]

This is my first argument essay. Please suggest.

"The citizens of Forsythe have adopted healthier lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their
eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years
ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance
that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a
food that few of the healthiest citizens regularly eat."


The author states that the citezens of Forsythe are now healthier than the past because of their change
of habit in eating that corresponds to government nutritional recommandations and their increase in
consuming food with kiran and decrease in consuming sulia. While this may sound credible at the first glance,
I find this statement unreasonable in many ways.

To begin with, the author does not provide any information on how the recent survey has been
conducted. It is crucial to know where the group of sample citizens are from and the number of samples in the
survey. For example, if the survey was mostly conducted around fitness centers and parks, it is possible that
the people around those areas are extra health concerned than the typical people of Forsythe. Moreover, the
number of samples in the survey is also essential. If the number of the samples is relatively low compared to
the number of the entire population in Forsythe, for instance, 100 people in the survey but there actually are
one million people in the city, we cannot immediately infer that the samples represent the majority's behaviour.

Next, the increase of sales of food containing kiran does not provide enough evidence that the
eating pattern of the citizens of Forsythe has changed. It is possible that kiran is a new cheap trendy
seasoning that most restaurants and food manufacturers love, so they put kiran in most types of food sold in
Forsythe. Thus, this results in a substantial increase in the number of kiran consumption without any intention
from the citizens.

Finally, the reduced sales of sulia does not indicate healthier lifestyles. The author only tells that the
healthiest citizens regularly eat sulia, but it does not mean that sulia does have a good effect on people's
health as there has been no real study of it. In addition, the decrease in sulia consumption might also be
resulted from the new trend of kiran seasoning that replace the old sulia taste for most people in Forsythe.

To sum up, the author does not provide sufficient evidences to support his claim. The statement
does not show where the survey was conducted and the number of samples in the survey, the intention of the
citizens on eating kiran, and the real study of sulia's effect on human's health. To strengthen the author's
claim, these additional evidences should be provided.


>>Sorry People, I tried to post it the first time and it gave me an error msg, so I tried again and then it results in double posts.