Evaluate/Criticise this GMAT Arg - red meat and fatty cheeses

[gsbawa]

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 you find this argument....

 

The argument that people are less concerned about their red meat and

fatty chesse conmsumtion as they were a deacade ago might first sound

logical in light of the given facts, but on a closer analysis it sound

illogial because of the assumtions made by author with regard to

Heart's Delight store, Good Earth Cafe and House of Beef.

 

First, the author does not highlight complete facts and figures about

the sales at Heart's Delight. Maybe, although there is a wide

selection of high fat chesse available, the sales might not be big in

that area. Heart's Delight might be selling organic fruits &

vegetables and whole-grain flours in huge quantities. If the author

had provided more details in this area, his argument would have been

more rational.

 

Second, the author assumes to be bearish about the volumes of Good

Eart Cafe based on the living made by its owner. The argument fails to

mention that if the owners might be simple people and are doing

bussiness on "no profit-no loss" basis. The author also fails to

mention the type of vegetarian food sold by Good Earth Cafe. Maybe the

chef at Good Earth uses lot of Fatty Chesse and oils to produce foods

like in Italian food and that is the reason people are not eating

there. If more light had been shed on this area, the argument would be

much more logical.

 

Third, the author assumes that because the owners of House of Beef are

millionares, they are doing a flourishing bussiness. The author fails

to mnention the current status of the bussiness, whether its in profit

or in loss. Maybe the owners were billionares before and the lack of

bussiness have made them loose more and now they are millionares. More

specifics on this would have made the argument more believeable.

 

Last, but important factor that undermines the author's claim is that

author assumes that all these there 3 stores are representative of

people in general. This in the final nail in the coffin of author's

argument and thus invalidates it.

 

In conclusion, if the author's account would have been more detailed

and accurate on Heart's Delight store, Good Earth Cafe and House of

Beef, the argument would have been more logical. In its current state,

the argument can easily be waekened.

 

Kindly rate it from 1 to 6 in your reply!

[thoughtcurry]

Hi,

I am keying in my response to the stem .Please comment on it. I will comment on yours in my subsequent post. Before posting the essay, also post the notes that you made and also the time you took in making those notes and in writing the actual essay.

Cheers!

 

Notes ( 5 minutes)

------

1)Makes a general statement but gives specific data.

2)No data is given about the consumption habits of people in this decade or the last decade.

3)Assumption that just because a shop has on display a wide selection of cheeses, people must be buying and consuming them too.

4)Assumption that New House of Beef have become millionares due to increased consumption of red meat, and not due to any other reason.

 

Essay (15 minutes)

------

I find the argument that, people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, full of logical loopholes and wide assumptions.

The author makes a very general statement, but provides only specific cases to prove her point. Based on the evidence collected from just three stores, one cannot conclude anything about the entire populace. It may be the case, that the local population in the vicinity of the three stores has become unconcerned about the consumption of red meat and cheese.

Also the author compares consumption patterns of this decade with the earlier one without giving any quantitative evidence. The evidence that Heart's Delight has on display a wide range of cheese, says nothing about the buying habits of its customers. It may very well be the case that none of the cheeses that are on display sell. Also no figures showing sales of red meat and cheese have been quoted in the text of the article. The author also makes the mistake of correlating the prosperity of the New Beef House proprietors to the sale of beef in their store. It may be the case that the prosperity of the New Beef House is due to some other business venture it has undertaken or due to an inheritance.

To conclude, the argument falls apart when subject to logical scrutiny. The argument could be made more cogent and tenable if actual sales figures of the products are given for both decades that are being compared. The argument is at best qualitative.

 

Proofreading(2 minutes)

[gsbawa]

Excellent Begining and Conclusion.

 

The middle part would have been better if divided into structures/paragraphs. Ideas/Assumptions/Weakening is perfect. A teacher at Princeton Review Delhi told me that their research concludes that length and structure of the paragraph is the primary basis of scoring for ETS.

 

I would rate this 4.5

 

Also I have been told its less difficult to score till 5 but the last mile is really tough. I am a non-native based in Delhi with Punjabi as my mother tongue. To me AWA matters a lot because a non-native's AWA is closely reviewed by the admissions com of the school one is applying to. I also think this is going to be a backup for the poor GMAT verbal score.

[thoughtcurry]

Hi,

You say that the length and the structure of the para are important in getting a good score in AWA.

Can you elaborate on that?

Have you taken the GMAT prior to this?

I am taking the GMAt with only a month's prep. I am shit scared, to say the least.

I am banking on my prep for CAT to take me smoothly through GMAT.

I am sending you an eval for your essay.

Cheers!

Thought

[rkoul72]

The argument claims that now people are not more concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese than they were decade ago. Although the argument may look persuasive at first glance, but further scrutiny reveals it to be specious. The claim is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Stated in this way, argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. Thus, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

 

First, the argument claims that Hearts'Delight that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in 1960's has also wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author doesnot provide any details about the sale of items in the store. The argument could have been more transparent if author had explicitly stated that sales of cheese were better or not than other items in store.

 

Second , the argument claims that Good Earth Cafe that is an old vegetarian restaurant still make a modest living. This is again an weak and unsupported claim, as the argument fails to provide any correlation between the sales and other expenditures. There can be chances that Earth Cafe has a huge bank loan and 90% of its profits are paid as a EMI to Bank. Perhaps Cafe Owners might have invested money in some other businesss where they faced a huge loss.

 

Third, the argument readily assumes that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because of their high profits from business.

Perhaps, it could be possible owners are millionaries because they have a lot of ancesstral property. Additionally, there are chances they are running other business whose profit compensates the loss from the Beef House. Without convincing evidences one may be left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

 

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons. The argument could have much clearer if author had considered all relevant facts. In this case, argument does not present any information about current sales of the grocery store and restaurants. One cannot assess the merits or demerits of a situation without having complete knowledge of all contributing factors. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.

 

 

 

Please rate this

[rkoul72]

The argument claims that now people are not more concerned about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheese than they were decade ago. Although the argument may look persuasive at first glance, but further scrutiny reveals it to be specious. The claim is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Stated in this way, argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. Thus, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

 

First, the argument claims that Hearts'Delight that started selling organic fruits and vegetables in 1960's has also wide selection of cheeses with high butter fat. The claim is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author doesnot provide any details about the sale of items in the store. The argument could have been more transparent if author had explicitly stated that sales of cheese were better or not than other items in store.

 

Second , the argument claims that Good Earth Cafe that is an old vegetarian restaurant still make a modest living. This is again an weak and unsupported claim, as the argument fails to provide any correlation between the sales and other expenditures. There can be chances that Earth Cafe has a huge bank loan and 90% of its profits are paid as a EMI to Bank. Perhaps Cafe Owners might have invested money in some other businesss where they faced a huge loss.

 

Third, the argument readily assumes that owners of the new House of Beef are millionaires because of their high profits from business.

Perhaps, it could be possible owners are millionaries because they have a lot of ancesstral property. Additionally, there are chances they are running other business whose profit compensates the loss from the Beef House. Without convincing evidences one may be left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

 

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons. The argument could have much clearer if author had considered all relevant facts. In this case, argument does not present any information about current sales of the grocery store and restaurants. One cannot assess the merits or demerits of a situation without having complete knowledge of all contributing factors. Thus, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.

 

Please rate this