Dear GmatClub friends, please give me some feedback on the below essay, so I can see where I stand and where I can improve moving forward:
Prompt:"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"
My Essay:
The argument presented in the prompt is based on some flawed assumptions, therefore it fails to convince the reader that more frequent inspections would reduce by half infections caused by meet bacteria and also that consumers should be safer by choosing the brand “Excel Meats”.
The first doubtful assumption is that the reduction seen in the period during which the government was conducting inspections was actually due to the government’s inspection. It could be the case, for example, that this year was colder than last year, therefore the environment was less prone to the proliferation of bacteria. The argument could be strengthened if the author presents more details about the environmental conditions of the two years, in order to show that the overall background was relatively stable in the two years that are being compared.
Furthermore, the author quickly assumes that the reduction of bacteria in the plants will be translated into the same percentage reduction in intestinal infections. First, seems to assume that chicken meat bacteria is the only cause of intestinal infection, and she completely ignores other causes that are not related to food or even bacteria that is caused by other types of meet. In addition, she fails to consider that bacteria could potentially reach the meat between the plant and the consumer; that bacteria could also be causing intestinal infections. In order to fill this gap the author could describe evidence showing that the main cause of intestinal infection is actually the bacteria that is originated from chicken meat-processing plants.
Another misconception in this argument is the generalization that Excel Meats will always be the safest choice because this particular company has shown more improvement according to the government’s study. The author is using “improvement” as a parameter, failing to acknowledge the possibility that Excel could be in a very bad shape in the first round of the research, and that might be the cause of such big improvement. The argument could be strengthened if we had more historical data about Excel’s performance in order to see that the company was already at acceptable standards before the research.
In summary, the author fails to convince the reader that more inspection in chicken meat plants would translate necessarily into a specific percentage of intestinal infections reduction since she uses seriously flawed assumptions to support her argument. It is also hard to believe that the company Excel is the safest choice for consumers unless we have more historical data about the company’s performance.
Thank you!