Powerprep-Argument (不好意思, 实在不知道编号)

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 Caf? 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.  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.

In this argument, the author reaches a conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulating their intake of red meat and fatty cheeses. To buttress his argument, the author points that a traditional vegetarian seller Heart's Delight (HD) now provides cheeses. In addition, the author compares the living of the owner of a vegetarian restaurant with the living of the owner of beef houses to provide evidence for the argument. At first glance, the lines of reasoning are somewhat plausible, but a closer examination will reveal that the argument has several flaws in the following aspects.

First, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The author makes the conclusion based on the fact that HD, a traditional vegetarian store, starts to sell a wide selection of cheeses made with high butterfat content. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, HD might be a typical case. It is the designated supplier of the high butter cheeses of a company outside the community. While, other stores are not designated so that they can only provide vegetables and fruits. Unless the author can provide evidence that HD can represent the whole population the traditional vegetarian store, the conclusion is unwarranted.

Second, the author falsely rules out other factors that exert influence on the living of storeowners. The author supposes that because the modest living of the vegetarian restaurant owner and the wealthy living of the House Beef owner both depend on what they sell. But there are many factors that can affect their lives. For example, if the vegetarian resonant owner is not skilled at operating his store while the owner of House of Beef is nice to the customers, it is entirely possible that the owner of House of Beef can make greater profits and become millionaires. Lacking a detailed analysis of the factors that affect the operation of the store, it's groundless to support the conclusion.

Third, the author did not tell us who is the writer of the article. If the writer is personally support intake of red meat and fatty cheeses, then the article written by him appear to be unfairly. Unless the author can convince us that the writer is a person at a fair position to write this article, it will not be persuasive for the reader to believe the trend.

In summary, the argument is not convincing unless the author can provide further evidence in the following aspects. 1) HD is representative of the entire vegetarian stores that start sells chesses made with high butterfat content. 2) The livings of both the vegetarian restaurant and the Beef House solely depend on what they sell. 3) The writer of the article writes this article at a fair position.

没有仔细看语法哦。个人觉得这次的逻辑错误找的不够明确

1insufficient sample: The situation of several stores can not represent the general trend.

2gratuitous assumption: The provision of cheese in the traditional vegetable store does not indicate that people are less concerned about the intake of red meat and fatty cheese.

3causal oversimplification: There is not necessarily a causal relationship between the wealth of the owner of a store and the trend of a whole society. Other factors should be considered and ruled out.