The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper:
“Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising, more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The article links the growth in restaurant industry in the country of Speissa to other important factors in the economy. The articles goes on to predict the continued growth on those factors for example: social changes like personal income rise, single person household getting increased and people having a greater interest in gourmet food, as evidenced by new publications on the subject, but the article fails to connect the cause and effect for the conclusion. Also the article fails to hold the ground that the expected changes are going to continue in the future.
Firstly, The article did not mention the cause of surge in the restaurant industry for the last decade. It could be from tourism where the tourists from around the world contributed in restaurant surge and it might be over as some other place has been discovered. It could also be that government had a subsidy for entrepreneurs for restaurant business, which is why there was a surge rather than any of the mentioned reason. The article fails to make a direct relation between the conclusion to the various macro events going in the economy.
Secondly, the author’s mention of social changes like publication of gourmet food publication could be because people had more free time and they want to make different and gourmet food themselves. This could be a reason for increased publication and not because people want to eat out. The article also fails to mention if the restaurant serve everyday menu, local or gourmet dishes as if the restaurants don’t serve gourmet food then again the publication of gourmet food articles is for other reasons than liked with surge in restaurant s in S.
To summarize, the articles fails to connect the various reason to the conclusion directly so the argument could be substantiated. Lack of concrete evidence makes the argument flawed and the conclusion is unacceptable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)