- UID
- 830167
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-11-15
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
板凳
楼主 |
发表于 2013-3-20 14:38:32
|
只看该作者
我的
In this argument, the author concludes that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. To support this conclusion, the author points out the fact that the Heart's Delight, a store has been selling organic fruits and vegetables and flours now also sells cheeses made with high butterfat content, that the Good Earth Cafe, an old vegetarian restaurant is still making a living while the owners of the new House of Beef across the street are millionaires indeed. In addition, the author reasons that the goods a store sells and the operation state of different restaurants are reflection of people's food preference. Appeared to be somewhat convincing, however, this argument is severely weakened by two critical flaws.
Most conspicuously, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion drawn from it. Citing the fact that a tore that started selling fruits and vegetables in the 1960's now sells cheeses, the author reasons that the store must started to sell cheeses in order to meet the growing need of fatty cheeses. Nevertheless, this is not necessarily the case for a single store is not representative of the whole market an no detailed data is provided. For example, certain kind of residents, such as workers and athelets, might move into the region where the store is located, and raise the demand of cheeses and meat which is merely a regional phenomenon. Given the consumers there are representative of people in general, the cheeses sold in the store may still remain a very low proportion of the overall food consumption. Therefore, the conclusion is unwarranted without valid evidence and data.
Second, the argument rests on the gratuitous assumption that the operation state of two different restaurants can be a reflection of people's food preference. This alone also does not substantiate the conclusion. The phenomenon can be explained in an adverse way. Just as likely, other restaurants serving beef might have left the region by strong marketing campaign carried out by the new House of Beef. Thus the house of Beef can attract lots of customers from the closed restaurants and yield much more profit while the overall beef consumption remains the same or even decreases. Meanwhile, many new vegetarian restaurants might have entered into this region and occupied some market share of the Good Earth Cafe which brought about the hard time of this restaurants. Therefore, the conclusion draw from this fact is not convincing without ruling out such probabilities.
In conclusion, this argument is severely undermined by the flaws abovementioned. To strengthen the conclusion, the author would have to illustrate the validity of the evidence and provide sufficient data such as the average consumption of red meat and fatty cheeses per capita now and 10 years ago. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2013-3-20 14:37:04
），抓住两点写写，不一会儿就一坨了。
收藏
收藏
