Food Trucks and a Confounded Report
A student argues in a 600-word essay that the city should ban food trucks from downtown. The argument rests on two claims: 'Food trucks take customers from restaurants' and 'A restaurant owner told me business is down 30%.' The student also cites a city report showing that downtown restaurant revenue fell 4% overall in the same year that 12 new food trucks opened. The same report notes that downtown office vacancy rose 6% and that Main Street was closed for construction for five months. The student concludes: 'The evidence is clear: food trucks are hurting local restaurants, and the city must act.' The essay is otherwise organized and mechanically clean. The student wants to know whether the argument is 'strong enough' for a placement essay.
1. Identify the causal claim and evaluate the evidence offered for it.
Read the worked answer
The causal claim is that food trucks cause restaurant revenue to fall. The evidence is weak for that claim. The owner's 30% figure is a single anecdote and may not represent downtown restaurants. The city report shows correlation: revenue fell 4% while 12 trucks opened, but it also identifies two plausible confounders-rising office vacancy and a five-month construction closure on Main Street. Either could reduce restaurant traffic.
Without a comparison group or a time-series that isolates the trucks' effect, the report cannot establish causation. The student's conclusion-'the evidence is clear'-overstates what the data show. A more defensible claim would be that food trucks may contribute to competitive pressure, but the city should investigate before banning them.
2. What additional evidence would make the causal argument stronger?
Read the worked answer
Stronger evidence would include: (1) revenue data from comparable downtown districts without new food trucks, to create a control; (2) customer counts or sales data from restaurants near truck locations before and after trucks arrived; (3) surveys showing whether customers substituted truck meals for restaurant meals; and (4) data controlling for office vacancy and construction, such as foot-traffic counts.
A difference-in-differences analysis or a matched comparison would help. The student could also interview multiple restaurant owners rather than one. This evidence would address the confounders and move the argument from correlation toward causation.
3. The student says: 'Even if the report doesn't prove it, the owner's experience is enough for me.' Evaluate this reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The owner's experience is relevant but not sufficient. Anecdotes can illustrate a problem and generate hypotheses, but they cannot establish a general policy claim because they are not representative and cannot rule out other causes. The owner might be down 30% because of construction, a rent increase, or a change in management.
The student's statement also shifts the burden of proof: for a citywide ban, the writer needs evidence that food trucks cause harm across many restaurants and that a ban would do more good than alternative policies. The owner's story can open the essay or humanize the issue, but the argument needs systematic evidence. Acknowledging the anecdote's limits would actually strengthen the writer's critical thinking.