练笔

 In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulationg their intake of red meat. The author's conclusion is based on the premise that the owner of the new House of Beef is richer than the owner of the vagetarian restaurant. As we skim through the assumption, we may find that the conclusion of the author appears to be somewhat convincing. However, after a further reflection, we can easily identify the conclusion drawn by the author does not necessarily apply to the argument. For instant, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. Moreover, this conclusion relies on a gratuitous assumption that links two different things together. Last but not the least, one example is insufficient to subtantiate the general situation.

First of all, the author makes a false analogy with the Good Earth Café and the new House of Beef. Undeniably, his two restaurants have some common points, for exalmple, they are not far away from each other in their location, they have the same source of customers; the dissimilarities of the two restaurants are also obviously: the Good Earth Café works only 8:00-18:00 like all the coffee shops, but the the new House of Beef, however, works from 12:00-22:00. The longer working hour helps the new House of Beef to earn more. What's more, the new House of Beef also sells diches more expansive such as steak or pasta, but the the Good Earth Café sells only some cakes and coffee, leading a lower revenue. The differences of the two restaurant evidently outweigh their similarities. Thus, the analogy used by the author is dubious fot him to draw the conclusion that people don't not regulat intake of red meat.

Secondly, this conclusion is based on a gratuitous assumption that the revenue differences of two different type restaurant can prove that people are not as concerned as they were a decade ago about regulationg their intake of red meat. There is not sufficient evidence cited by the author to support his view. Whether people regulate their ntake of red meat has nothing to do with the revenue of the two restaurants. So, the author's conclusion is dubious.

Finally, the author take just one example of the revenue of two restaurants to prove that people take more red meat than ever. It is impossible to establish a general situation that people eat more meat by citing merely one pair of constrastion. If the author can prove that all the meat restaurant have a greater revenue that the vegetaion restaurant near them, the conclusion of the author can be somewhat strengthened. Otherwise, we can get more opposite examples to weaken author's conclusion.

In conclusion, the author's claim is not as convincing as it stands. The claim is flawed by the reasons aforementioned and thus dubious. If the author really understand the reason for the difference of the Good Earth Café and the new House of Beef , the his claim can be

considerably strengthened. Furthermore, it is crucial for the author to have a full knowledge

of all the contributing factors to the intake of red meat. To consolidate and corroborate the argument, the author should provide more examples to prove his conclusion. Only with more convincing evidence could the argument substantiate author's view.