frmichelin1-10, Exercise 2: "Michelin ratings make restaurants better"

Model answer:

1. Who says it? Chefs, critics and the guide's supporters, who say the stars raise standards; critics who say the opposite also exist.
2. Evidence? Mostly anecdotes and chefs' statements. Few controlled studies are known (check).
3. Meaning? "Better" could mean better food, better service, higher prices, or only more popular. The word needs defining.
4. Who gains? The guide, the restaurants and the owners, who all benefit if ratings are seen as raising quality.
5. Independent sources? Chefs who handed back stars said the pursuit narrowed their cooking (Chapter 5); studies of sales effects exist, but not of quality (check).
6. What would change my mind? A comparison of similar restaurants, with and without a rating, measured blind by diners over time.

Verdict in two sentences: "Ratings probably encourage consistency and effort in some kitchens, and also bring costs and pressure that can push others towards a safe style. The evidence is mostly anecdotal, so the claim is plausible but unproven."

Care: the verdict should say what is plausible, what is shown, and what is missing.