Another AWA Essay for feedback and rating
[#permalink]
02 Feb 2018, 02:53
Hi Everyone,
I have done another practice AWA essay. Would be great if someone could help rate it and provide any feedback as to how I did and how it can be improved.
Many thanks!!
The Question
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.
The Essay.
Citing the positive outcome of a recent trial, the argument claims that by increasing the frequency of inspections on meat-processing plants, there will be significant improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination of processed chickens and a reduction of instances of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country. However, the argument is certainly weak and unconvincing as it suffers from several flaws.
Firstly, on the trial which the author cited, the author made an assumption that it is because of the increased government inspection that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent. However, the author fails to provide evidence as to show how the sampling was conducted. Perhaps the meat-processing plants submitted specially selected meats for the sampling test in order to impress the government that they were reactive to their concerns. Or perhaps the required sampling size is so small that it becomes unrepresentative of the final output. As so, this trial is unable to well-support the claim that is to follow. The support can be strengthened by provided more details to show that the conducted sampling test that was done independently and is well-representative of the overall output.
Secondly, the author claims that 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. This is certainly a stretched and unfounded claim as there could be many other reasons for such infections other than from bacteria found in processed chickens. Perhaps the water quality in the country is also a health concern that accounted for a significant number of reported incidents. The claim can be strengthened by providing evidence that bacteria found in processed chickens accounts for a large majority of reported case in the country.
Thirdly, the author claims that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because Excel's main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. However, this is an unsubstantiated claim. An improvement does not necessarily mean an overall high standard of food hygiene and cleanliness. Perhaps the improvement mentioned was only a marginal one with room for much more. The claim can be strengthened by providing evidence that there was a marked improvement that has exceeded the required legal standards.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and hence unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors, which the argument presently lacks. It can be considerable strengthened by introducing sound relevant evidence and facts as described above.