Joined: 13 Feb 2013
, given: 0
Looking for someone to rate my first essay [#permalink]
13 Feb 2013, 16:30
Hi! I'm going to take the test on 15 Feb. This is my first attempt to write an AWA essay (after reading a lot of posts about the issue).
It will be very useful for me to get any answers and opinions about my work.
(I wrote it in Word, therefore all the words are written right, but I really had a few mistakes)
Thank you in advance.
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.”
This argument states that more frequent inspections will decrease the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections all over the country. Moreover, the author assumes that consumers of Excel Meats are safe from these infections since a partial improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination at the main plant was made. These conclusions are obviously flawed because of the lack of evidence in assumption on which they are based.
First, the author readily assumes that more frequent inspections will decrease the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections all over the country. The decreasing the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken during the more frequent governmental inspections is provided in support of the evidence. However, we have only information regarding chicken meat at the selected meat-producing plants. Such a narrow research cannot provide a clear evidence for drawing a conclusion about all meat-producing and other food-producing plants. Furthermore, we have not any evidence that these selected plants represent the trend even for meat-producing plants. Therefore, to make the argument more convincing, the author should consider information about correlation between frequency of inspections and decreasing of bacteria at other types of plants.
Second, the argument assumes that there is a right correlation between decreasing in amount of bacteria in the meat and number infections around the country. This assumption is weak since the author does not provide the proof of such correlation. There could be other sources of stomach and intestinal infections. As the argument does not state that the bacteria in the meat are the only cause of these diseases, this assumption is unproved.
Third, the author claims that the 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. This argument is heavily flawed for the followed reasons. It states that the Excel Meat had improved the situation only at the main plant. However, the consumers of Excel Meat buy products from other its plants as well. And the argument does not provide information about other Excel Meat plant. Moreover, the information that Excel Meat had shown more improvement does not exactly mean that there are no any bacteria in the meat from that plant. It could be possible, that they had decreased the amount of bacteria by 50 percent, when other plants – only by 30 percent. But even such an improvement does not mean that consumers of Excel Meat are safe.
In conclusion, without the important information related to the conclusion the argument remains flawed.