I kind of lost the point of the article when the author veered into the entirely separate topic of McDonalds being unhealthy. It's like two totally separate articles in one.
Article 1. McDonalds (along with other traditionally cheap-food places) is now very expensive and not for poor people.
Article 2. McDonalds serves (and people are out there eating) unhealthy food.
Article 1 is news if you haven't been in a McDonalds in the last 5 years. Article 2 is obvious and is not really a new phenomenon.
Article 1. McDonalds (along with other traditionally cheap-food places) is now very expensive and not for poor people.
Article 2. McDonalds serves (and people are out there eating) unhealthy food.
Article 1 is news if you haven't been in a McDonalds in the last 5 years. Article 2 is obvious and is not really a new phenomenon.