|
|
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.
29 Oct 2018, 18:14
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 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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the passage, the writer argues that if the government performs more frequent inspections at meat-processing plants the amount of bacteria in chicken meat will decrease and consequently the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections will also decrease and that consumers of Excel Meats do not need to worry about meet quality.. This is based on the premises that in a recent trial period when the government inspected these plants more frequently, the bacteria amount decrease by 50 percent on average and that Excel´s main processing plant has shown better methods in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other processing meat plant cited in the government report. However, on deeper analysis, it becomes apparent that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
One such flaw is the assumption that the reason why bacterial infection decreased is related to government´s inspection frequency. However, there may be other reasons that are responsible for such a decrease. It might be the case that government´s inspections have nothing to do with the good results of bacteria lower infection rates in chicken meat. For example, the improvements in bacterial elimination in chicken meat could be associated with better production quality in farms that supply those chickens. In order to strengthen the argument, more factual information about what was the real reason that provoked such decrease could be provided, factual information that linked government´s inspections frequency to the rate of bacteria in chicken meat.
Moreover the argument is incorrectly based on the assumption that just because the government report about infected meats showed that Excel´s main plant had the best improvement in the method of eliminating bacteria from meats, consumers should not worry about Excel´s meat quality. However, no information is provided regarding what were the kinds of meat that Excel applied such method. For instance, if the company only achieved this result in beef meat and not in chicken meat, than consumers of chicken meat should as worried as any other chicken consumer. To render this argument more valid, the writer should demonstrate through factual information that the improvement was, indeed, related to chicken meat.
After closer examination of the passage presented, it is apparent that there are several logical flaws and that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. The recommendations in the essay show how the argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound.
“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
In the passage, the writer argues that if the government performs more frequent inspections at meat-processing plants the amount of bacteria in chicken meat will decrease and consequently the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections will also decrease and that consumers of Excel Meats do not need to worry about meet quality.. This is based on the premises that in a recent trial period when the government inspected these plants more frequently, the bacteria amount decrease by 50 percent on average and that Excel´s main processing plant has shown better methods in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other processing meat plant cited in the government report. However, on deeper analysis, it becomes apparent that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
One such flaw is the assumption that the reason why bacterial infection decreased is related to government´s inspection frequency. However, there may be other reasons that are responsible for such a decrease. It might be the case that government´s inspections have nothing to do with the good results of bacteria lower infection rates in chicken meat. For example, the improvements in bacterial elimination in chicken meat could be associated with better production quality in farms that supply those chickens. In order to strengthen the argument, more factual information about what was the real reason that provoked such decrease could be provided, factual information that linked government´s inspections frequency to the rate of bacteria in chicken meat.
Moreover the argument is incorrectly based on the assumption that just because the government report about infected meats showed that Excel´s main plant had the best improvement in the method of eliminating bacteria from meats, consumers should not worry about Excel´s meat quality. However, no information is provided regarding what were the kinds of meat that Excel applied such method. For instance, if the company only achieved this result in beef meat and not in chicken meat, than consumers of chicken meat should as worried as any other chicken consumer. To render this argument more valid, the writer should demonstrate through factual information that the improvement was, indeed, related to chicken meat.
After closer examination of the passage presented, it is apparent that there are several logical flaws and that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. The recommendations in the essay show how the argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound.
Moderators:
188 posts
