It’s not false choice at all. Either you agree with capitalist concepts enough to understand that indeed portion size (like any other aspect of the business) can drive away customers, or you don’t.
It’s silly because the proof has been available for at least 230 years. Since Smith took the time to write Wealth of Nations (and really before him since none of what he wrote was really that revolutionary, just nobody had bothered to write it down before) we’ve known how businesses draw and repel customers. Being a frequenter of Yahoo Health which web publishes the Eat This Not That column from Men’s Health ( http://health.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AgOMLMK2WRLaWGuEkC4uEJh1kIV4?p=eat+this+not+that )yes indeed I see consumers rejecting large portion size (and other unhealthy factors). Now will it be enough to change any menus? I don’t know. But the remains, and remains proven for over 2 centuries that if enough people reject large portion size (or any other aspect of business) there WILL be change. That’s a simple known quantity of capitalism.
The reason you are in error with your argument is because you have misunderstood the question. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, because another possibility is that you are intentionally misrepresenting it.
The issue does not actually involve capitalistic concepts much at all. The issue is that, so far, there is no evidence that the theory (customers reject food item choices strictly because the portions are too large first, and not as a result of restaurants changing the portion sizes first) has actual documented proof.
The issue is not whether restaurants will respond to changing customer purchasing choices. Of course they will, or they will go out of business.