During a recent trial period during which Federal Drug Authority[FDA]

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.