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
05 Dec 2017, 00:38
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."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The above argument claims that if the government would institute more frequent inspections at meat processing plants, the incidence of stomach ad intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In order to make this claim it becomes crucial to have more information such as the basis of selection of meat-processing pants, cause of stomach and intestinal infections. The argument further concludes that since Excel Meats has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination, so the consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infections. The argument is highly flawed in this reasoning as it fails to overlook the other important aspects.
Firstly, it is mentioned that the inspections were made in selected meat-processing plants. The basis of selection and methodology of inspection is important here. Were the inspections only reason for the decrease in the number of bacteria or the companies were already undergoing improvement in their processes to reduce the number of bacteria because of market retention and quality improvement etc.
Secondly, the cause of stomach and intestinal infections is assigned to number of bacteria in processed chickens at meat-processing plants. It would be prudent to evaluate what other causes are responsible for stomach and intestinal infections and how much is the proportion of each cause in causing stomach infections. For example, can bacteria from other source of food cause stomach infections much more than bacteria from meat? Even if we assume that bacteria in meat are the main cause of infections it would be more logical if we see the entire cycle of meat from production to consumption and analyse at which points can bacteria contaminate meat. We can ask questions, like, does the number of bacteria in processed meat does not change after it leaves factory premises? Is it possible that packaging, handling and transporting may increase the number of bacteria in meat? Are the restaurants and individual persons not required to handle and cook the meat in a particular fashion so as to reduce the number of bacteria?
Thirdly, author fails to consider that more important measure to judge if a meat from production house is safer to consume is the absolute percentage of processed meats that have less than threshold value rather than the relative improvement with respect to the production houses. What if Excel Meats already had low quality of meat that even after improving most, they lag behind other meat-processing units. As mentioned in previous paragraph, it remains questionable if bacterial contamination can increase at any other point such as while transporting, cooking, etc.
If the above mentioned facts are presented, then we can better evaluate the conclusion presented in the argument.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
The above argument claims that if the government would institute more frequent inspections at meat processing plants, the incidence of stomach ad intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In order to make this claim it becomes crucial to have more information such as the basis of selection of meat-processing pants, cause of stomach and intestinal infections. The argument further concludes that since Excel Meats has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination, so the consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infections. The argument is highly flawed in this reasoning as it fails to overlook the other important aspects.
Firstly, it is mentioned that the inspections were made in selected meat-processing plants. The basis of selection and methodology of inspection is important here. Were the inspections only reason for the decrease in the number of bacteria or the companies were already undergoing improvement in their processes to reduce the number of bacteria because of market retention and quality improvement etc.
Secondly, the cause of stomach and intestinal infections is assigned to number of bacteria in processed chickens at meat-processing plants. It would be prudent to evaluate what other causes are responsible for stomach and intestinal infections and how much is the proportion of each cause in causing stomach infections. For example, can bacteria from other source of food cause stomach infections much more than bacteria from meat? Even if we assume that bacteria in meat are the main cause of infections it would be more logical if we see the entire cycle of meat from production to consumption and analyse at which points can bacteria contaminate meat. We can ask questions, like, does the number of bacteria in processed meat does not change after it leaves factory premises? Is it possible that packaging, handling and transporting may increase the number of bacteria in meat? Are the restaurants and individual persons not required to handle and cook the meat in a particular fashion so as to reduce the number of bacteria?
Thirdly, author fails to consider that more important measure to judge if a meat from production house is safer to consume is the absolute percentage of processed meats that have less than threshold value rather than the relative improvement with respect to the production houses. What if Excel Meats already had low quality of meat that even after improving most, they lag behind other meat-processing units. As mentioned in previous paragraph, it remains questionable if bacterial contamination can increase at any other point such as while transporting, cooking, etc.
If the above mentioned facts are presented, then we can better evaluate the conclusion presented in the argument.
Moderators:
188 posts
