Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Sep 2014, 20:12

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch?

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 123
Location: India
Schools: Terry, Georgia Tech
WE 1: Working for Wipro Technologies since April 2010
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 54 [1] , given: 22

how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch? [#permalink] New post 25 Oct 2010, 02:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
The following appeared as part of an article in a trade magazine:
“During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent,
the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year’s
level. If the government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections
throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In the meantime, consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from
infection because Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination
than any other plant cited in the government report.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.



The argument that frequent visits by Governement officials could bring down the stomach infection problems by 50% and that consumers of Excel meat should be safe fails to mention several key points based on which it could be evaluated. The author makes a number of assumptions, for which there is no solid evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.

First, the argument does not make it clear how long the trial period continued. It is possible that when the trial was conducted, bacteria that contaminate meat are less active due to weather conditions and can infact grow and thrive when favourable conditions return. Thus, the visit of officials has no direct link with the growth of bateria, as suggested by the passage. Additionally, It is also not clear just how many plants the official visited. If they visited only a handful of plants, and the reduction in bacteria was seen across processing plants, it is quite possible that the reduction was due to some other reason and not because of these visits. Had the author provided some quantitaive data about the scope of this visits, the reasoning could have been much convincing.

Second, the author assumes that all bacteria found in processed meat infact cause stomach and intestinal infections. It is possible that some of the bacteria are essential bacterias for humas. For example, just like curd cannot be made from milk without the lactobacillus bacteria, it is possible that a few bacterias are needed by the processing plants, and they do not cause infections. Also, the declaration that 50% reduction in the number of bacteria will also cut down the number of infected people by 50% is dubious to say the least, as there is no data showing direct co relation between these numbers. Had the author provided some statistical data about how the reduction of bacteria have infact reduced the number of infected patients, this assumption would certainly have been much persuasive. Without it, however, it seems stretched.

Third, the author also says that consumers of Excel Meat should be safe. But these statement is also far fetched. Just because the main plant has shown improvement in eliminating bacteria does not mean that the meat people consume will have less bacterias. It is possible that the meat is contaminated after it gets out of the plant due to improper handling etc. Also, it may be possible that the government standards for the meat processing industry is not upto the medically accepted levels. Thus, to say that consumers would be safe is incorrect. At most, the author can claim that the consumers of Excel Meat would be safer than consumers of other plans mentioned in the government report.

In conclusion, I think the argument is very weak and the conclusions drawn are far fetched for the above reasons. The argument could have been strentgthened had the author addressed some pertinent factors like the type of bacteria reduced, the actual decrease in the number of infected people, and the percentage of plants visited by the officials. Without these information, however, the argument remains vulnerable and open to debate.
_________________

Samidh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to get in touch if you feel I can be of some assistance to you. You can find me in Facebook if you search!


Consider giving me some kudos if you like my post

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 415
Location: Europe
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 26

Re: how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch? [#permalink] New post 03 Nov 2010, 15:02
Instead of "Third" use "Finally".

I'm not sure "in conclusion" is a proper idiom, I would say "in summary" or "as a conclusion".

Also, the correct idiom is "Without these pieces of information".

You used twice "had the author ...", find an alternative to avoid redundancy.

At the end of first paragraph you made a typo: "would have been much MORE persuasive".

Overall it deserves a high score from 5 to 6.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 123
Location: India
Schools: Terry, Georgia Tech
WE 1: Working for Wipro Technologies since April 2010
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 22

Re: how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch? [#permalink] New post 03 Nov 2010, 21:22
PadawanOfTheGMAT wrote:
Instead of "Third" use "Finally".

I'm not sure "in conclusion" is a proper idiom, I would say "in summary" or "as a conclusion".

Also, the correct idiom is "Without these pieces of information".

You used twice "had the author ...", find an alternative to avoid redundancy.

At the end of first paragraph you made a typo: "would have been much MORE persuasive".

Overall it deserves a high score from 5 to 6.


Thanks a lot! i am taking the GMAT on the 12th of Nov. I am sure the detailed analysis u did would help me in getting a good score in the essays. Thanks a lot!
_________________

Samidh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to get in touch if you feel I can be of some assistance to you. You can find me in Facebook if you search!


Consider giving me some kudos if you like my post

Re: how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch?   [#permalink] 03 Nov 2010, 21:22
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Analysis of an argument srilathalatha 0 26 Jun 2013, 23:31
Analysis of an argument--art and music prachich1987 0 21 Jan 2011, 05:18
how much will this analysis of an issue likely to fetch? samidh 1 25 Oct 2010, 02:04
Please rate this Analysis of an argument samidh 4 24 Sep 2010, 01:32
Pls. rate - Analysis of Argument sang5650 3 20 Apr 2010, 23:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

how much is this analysis of argument likely to fetch?

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.