Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
minustark
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Last visit: 01 Apr 2021
Posts: 469
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 52
Status:Student
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
Schools: Zicklin Baruch "22
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V35
GPA: 3.9
WE:Education (Accounting)
Products:
![During a recent trial period during which Federal Drug Authority[FDA]](/forum/styles/gmatclub_light/imageset/icon_post_target_unread.svg "During a recent trial period during which Federal Drug Authority[FDA]"){kind=icon}
19 Jun 2020, 17:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 number 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.”
Citing frequent government inspection of meat-processing plants as an effective way to reduce stomach and intestinal infections, the article reaches the conclusion that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection. The author’s line of reasoning is that since Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvement that any other featured in the government report, its processed meat won’t cause any infection to consumers. The conclusion relies on several unwarranted assumptions and depicts a distorted view of reality, thereby, is unconvincing.
The first questionable assumption is around the correlation between government inspections to meat-processing plants and the decrease of bacteria in processed chicken. The author assumes that since the government inspected the selected meat processing plants frequently, the number of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent. However, many other factors might have contributed to this reduction of bacteria. For example, it is quite possible that in the past year the high number of bacteria in processed chicken happened as a result of bird flu, which has been controlled this year, and this measure reduces the bacteria from the processed chicken. Many other factors such as improved nurturing of chicken, advanced hands-free processing techniques , pure water supply can lower the number of bacteria. As the argument has failed to consider and eliminate these alternate reasons behind decreased number of bacteria in chicken, its conclusion is questionable.
Even if the government inspection caused the 50 percent decrease in the number of bacteria in processed chicken, it is not sufficient for the claim that frequent inspection would ensure stomach and intestinal infection throughout the country would be cut in half. As the decrease was from previous year’s level, the stated comparison has no ground without information regarding the previous year’s situation. To instance, if it turns out that the last year’s level of bacteria was significantly higher than the safe level, then 50 percent decrease on average would still possess risk of gastrointestinal diseases. The author states a general statistic while providing no information about the base year’s data; a fact that renders his conclusion unreliable.
Another problematic aspect of the argument is around the hasty generalization the author made while claiming Excel Meat’s consumers would be safe from infections. Just because Excel showed highest improvements among the selected plants covered in the government report, it makes no sense that Excel’s processed meats are completely safe from bacteria. To assess the argument better, some questions need to be answered. What was the basis for selecting those meat processing plants inspected by the government, do Excel’s all processing plants achieve the same success in eliminating bacteria as their main processing plant, do meats only catch bacteria during the processing phase? Knowledge about these factors would help to establish the claim that consumers of Excel Meats will not get intestinal infections, at the very least, from the meats purchased from Excel outlets.
In sum, the argument in its current form is flawed and need to revise some of its assumptions. To strengthen the evidence supporting the conclusion, the author has to establish frequent government inspection as the sole cause behind the decrease in the level of bacteria in processed chicken. Moreover, information about past year’s level of bacteria in processed meats and the way in which the meat processing plants were selected for government inspection would help to support the argument to a great extent.
“During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent, the number 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.”
Citing frequent government inspection of meat-processing plants as an effective way to reduce stomach and intestinal infections, the article reaches the conclusion that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection. The author’s line of reasoning is that since Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvement that any other featured in the government report, its processed meat won’t cause any infection to consumers. The conclusion relies on several unwarranted assumptions and depicts a distorted view of reality, thereby, is unconvincing.
The first questionable assumption is around the correlation between government inspections to meat-processing plants and the decrease of bacteria in processed chicken. The author assumes that since the government inspected the selected meat processing plants frequently, the number of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent. However, many other factors might have contributed to this reduction of bacteria. For example, it is quite possible that in the past year the high number of bacteria in processed chicken happened as a result of bird flu, which has been controlled this year, and this measure reduces the bacteria from the processed chicken. Many other factors such as improved nurturing of chicken, advanced hands-free processing techniques , pure water supply can lower the number of bacteria. As the argument has failed to consider and eliminate these alternate reasons behind decreased number of bacteria in chicken, its conclusion is questionable.
Even if the government inspection caused the 50 percent decrease in the number of bacteria in processed chicken, it is not sufficient for the claim that frequent inspection would ensure stomach and intestinal infection throughout the country would be cut in half. As the decrease was from previous year’s level, the stated comparison has no ground without information regarding the previous year’s situation. To instance, if it turns out that the last year’s level of bacteria was significantly higher than the safe level, then 50 percent decrease on average would still possess risk of gastrointestinal diseases. The author states a general statistic while providing no information about the base year’s data; a fact that renders his conclusion unreliable.
Another problematic aspect of the argument is around the hasty generalization the author made while claiming Excel Meat’s consumers would be safe from infections. Just because Excel showed highest improvements among the selected plants covered in the government report, it makes no sense that Excel’s processed meats are completely safe from bacteria. To assess the argument better, some questions need to be answered. What was the basis for selecting those meat processing plants inspected by the government, do Excel’s all processing plants achieve the same success in eliminating bacteria as their main processing plant, do meats only catch bacteria during the processing phase? Knowledge about these factors would help to establish the claim that consumers of Excel Meats will not get intestinal infections, at the very least, from the meats purchased from Excel outlets.
In sum, the argument in its current form is flawed and need to revise some of its assumptions. To strengthen the evidence supporting the conclusion, the author has to establish frequent government inspection as the sole cause behind the decrease in the level of bacteria in processed chicken. Moreover, information about past year’s level of bacteria in processed meats and the way in which the meat processing plants were selected for government inspection would help to support the argument to a great extent.
25 Jun 2020, 07:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
https://gmatclub.com/forum/please-rate-326618.html
The following is the response I gave to one of the essays. Much of it holds good for many of our GMAT Argument essays. One may judiciously use the contents to enrich one’s essays I GMAT
daagh
_____
The following is the response I gave to one of the essays. Much of it holds good for many of our GMAT Argument essays. One may judiciously use the contents to enrich one’s essays I GMAT
daagh
_____
16 Apr 2021, 20:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can some rate my essay:
Discuss................
"During a recent trial period during which Federal Drug Authority[FDA] inspections at selected pharma prod unit were more than frequent, the number of medical consignments rejected on quality issues before they were shipped decreased by 60% on average from the previous year levels. If the FDA were to institute more frequent inspections the consumers of life saving drugs will be safe from side effects due to consumption of low quality drugs because most pharma prod units have shown improvements in delivering better quality drugs than those not inspected frequently."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument claims that imposing frequent inspections of FDA over pharmaceutical production companies tends them to follow guidelines strictly and follow quality norms. Stated in such a way the argument in inconclusive of the data supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of reality and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes.In sum, the argument could have been presented in an improvised way with more relevant and supporting fact sheet on which the assumption depends.
Firstly the argument states that crackdown on pharmaceutical production company relating to quality issues helped to increase quality level of the registered drugs upto 60%. The data is clearly ambiguous as it is able to mention the baseline of what data helped FDA to calculate that quality level increased to the certain percentage. also the author fails to cite any previous reports or data of the FDA over the inspections made. Example would be expenses under the testing and consultancy sections or report cards generated by doctors over schedule drugs.
Secondly the argument claims that further alertness of such visits would have helped the pharmaceutical production company to lower the side effects of life saving drugs which would be impossible to attain. This data is again unreliable as it fails to address the ethical behavioural pattern of the pharmaceutical organisation. However the author also addresses that those drugs when compared of inspection over un inspected were found to be of better quality, but it again fails to address and 3rd party inspection report or the production quality department report, which is a vague thought to satisfy the author’s claim
Finally the argument should answer to questions such as: Why are the reports not taken under consideration if any? What will be financial and environmental implications? How will the FDA support increase the quality of the life saving drugs? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thought than a well reasoned inference drawn out of logical thinking.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be much stronger if the author would have explicitly stated the cause and effect analysis with relevant facts and figures. In order to access the merits of the decision, it would be essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors, without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Discuss................
"During a recent trial period during which Federal Drug Authority[FDA] inspections at selected pharma prod unit were more than frequent, the number of medical consignments rejected on quality issues before they were shipped decreased by 60% on average from the previous year levels. If the FDA were to institute more frequent inspections the consumers of life saving drugs will be safe from side effects due to consumption of low quality drugs because most pharma prod units have shown improvements in delivering better quality drugs than those not inspected frequently."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument claims that imposing frequent inspections of FDA over pharmaceutical production companies tends them to follow guidelines strictly and follow quality norms. Stated in such a way the argument in inconclusive of the data supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of reality and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes.In sum, the argument could have been presented in an improvised way with more relevant and supporting fact sheet on which the assumption depends.
Firstly the argument states that crackdown on pharmaceutical production company relating to quality issues helped to increase quality level of the registered drugs upto 60%. The data is clearly ambiguous as it is able to mention the baseline of what data helped FDA to calculate that quality level increased to the certain percentage. also the author fails to cite any previous reports or data of the FDA over the inspections made. Example would be expenses under the testing and consultancy sections or report cards generated by doctors over schedule drugs.
Secondly the argument claims that further alertness of such visits would have helped the pharmaceutical production company to lower the side effects of life saving drugs which would be impossible to attain. This data is again unreliable as it fails to address the ethical behavioural pattern of the pharmaceutical organisation. However the author also addresses that those drugs when compared of inspection over un inspected were found to be of better quality, but it again fails to address and 3rd party inspection report or the production quality department report, which is a vague thought to satisfy the author’s claim
Finally the argument should answer to questions such as: Why are the reports not taken under consideration if any? What will be financial and environmental implications? How will the FDA support increase the quality of the life saving drugs? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with impressions that the claim is more of a wishful thought than a well reasoned inference drawn out of logical thinking.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It would be much stronger if the author would have explicitly stated the cause and effect analysis with relevant facts and figures. In order to access the merits of the decision, it would be essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors, without which the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
