|
|
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.
19 Apr 2021, 10:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
------------------------------------------Please review my essay------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Prompt: “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.”
Essay Format
The argument claims that the recent inspections made by government authorities at various meat processing centres have led to decrease in the bacterial count in the samples upto 50% compared to previous year levels. Stated in such a way the argument is inconclusive of the data, supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate the facts in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could have been presented in a much better and improvised way with more relevant and supporting fact sheet on which the arguments depends.
First the argument readily assumes over the fact that since the frequent inspection of the meat processing centres have led to decrease the bacterial count as compared to previous year, it could be much attributed that the same would be helpful in reduced intestinal infections of the country. This statement is much of a wishful thought rather than based on facts and figures. For examples there can be instances that intentional infection could be reasoned for some other food poisoning sources. It can be also linked of the increase in bacterial counts in chicken due to some disease or to the source of water used in meat processing industries, which could have been more convincing to the readers.
Second the argument claims that meat processed by Excel Industries are free from bacterial infections and are safe to consume. This statement is again a very weak and unsupported claim except for the facts that government is endorsing. It is more of a generalised statement supporting the Excel’s main plant, but what about the other plants in the city, which are constantly engrossed in meat processing. The author could have also presented the parameters of inspections which led to decrease on count of bacteria of chicken in the Excel’s main plant. f the argument could have provided evidence relating to the threat of economy, then the same would have been more convincing.
Finally, the argument should debate about the parameters of evaluation by government which led to find that the decrease in bacterial count was upto 50% less compared to previous year, and what could have been the respective contributing factors. Also the author should present a justified analysis that in previous years what were the factors that led to increase in bacterial count and stomach infections.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is unconvincing as it fails to address the nuances that the author argues in view of drop of bacterial count upto 50% compared to previous year. Unless the facts are stated with proper reasons it would be unwise to jump on the conclusion. This can be well justified with the reason of merits supporting the author’s view without which the argument is unsubstantiated, wishful thought and open to debate.
Q: Prompt: “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.”
Essay Format
The argument claims that the recent inspections made by government authorities at various meat processing centres have led to decrease in the bacterial count in the samples upto 50% compared to previous year levels. Stated in such a way the argument is inconclusive of the data, supporting the hypothesis, tends to manipulate the facts in a distorted way and is a leap of faith reasoning without clear outcomes. In sum, the argument could have been presented in a much better and improvised way with more relevant and supporting fact sheet on which the arguments depends.
First the argument readily assumes over the fact that since the frequent inspection of the meat processing centres have led to decrease the bacterial count as compared to previous year, it could be much attributed that the same would be helpful in reduced intestinal infections of the country. This statement is much of a wishful thought rather than based on facts and figures. For examples there can be instances that intentional infection could be reasoned for some other food poisoning sources. It can be also linked of the increase in bacterial counts in chicken due to some disease or to the source of water used in meat processing industries, which could have been more convincing to the readers.
Second the argument claims that meat processed by Excel Industries are free from bacterial infections and are safe to consume. This statement is again a very weak and unsupported claim except for the facts that government is endorsing. It is more of a generalised statement supporting the Excel’s main plant, but what about the other plants in the city, which are constantly engrossed in meat processing. The author could have also presented the parameters of inspections which led to decrease on count of bacteria of chicken in the Excel’s main plant. f the argument could have provided evidence relating to the threat of economy, then the same would have been more convincing.
Finally, the argument should debate about the parameters of evaluation by government which led to find that the decrease in bacterial count was upto 50% less compared to previous year, and what could have been the respective contributing factors. Also the author should present a justified analysis that in previous years what were the factors that led to increase in bacterial count and stomach infections.
In conclusion the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is unconvincing as it fails to address the nuances that the author argues in view of drop of bacterial count upto 50% compared to previous year. Unless the facts are stated with proper reasons it would be unwise to jump on the conclusion. This can be well justified with the reason of merits supporting the author’s view without which the argument is unsubstantiated, wishful thought and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
