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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
19 Jun 2023, 09:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can someone please rate my essay and suggest me the required improvements.
Question:-
“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.
Essay
The government conducts trials at meat plants more frequently and finds that the number of bacteria in the sample of the processed chicken has decreased up to 50 percent from the previous year. Also, It is being claimed that the incidents of Stomach and intestine infection can be cut to half if the frequency of Inspection increases. A possibility is also being provided that people who use Excel’s meat can be more safe as Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvements in bacteria contamination than other plants. However, I find a lot of flaws associated with the statement and the argument seems quite vague and weak.
Firstly it is provided that the government is conducting more inspections of meat plants. No information has been provided about the pattern of the selected plants and as well as selecting the plant. Failing to do so leads us to think about the governmental inspection plan. It is not clear if the government is able to inspect the majority of the meat processing facilities or not. Take an example, if a person randomly orders a pizza from a pizza shop, then it does not indicate if other pizzas are tasty or not. The same applies to Meat production plants. Investigating a random set of meat processing plants does not mean that other plant’s meat contain more bacteria or not. This also applies to a particular batch. In case if a plant manufactures a batch of meat where bacteria contamination is quite high then it is not sure if it is also being covered in the governmental investigation or not.
Secondly it is claimed that the number of bacteria has been reduced to 50 percent as compared to last year. It does not assure that the number of bacterias will not increase in the near future. Take an example of Stock’s price. If a particular stock’s price is lower by 50 percent than the previous year and we expect that the prices will go further down in the near future then we are not correct. The prices of that stock can increase or decrease based upon the performance of the company or any other reasons. It is even possible that the prices of that stock can increase by 30 percent next year. The same case applies for the bacteria contamination in meat. The trend does not guarantee that the bacteria contamination will continue to go down or not.
Also Stomach and intestine infection does not occur only because of the bacteria in the meat. The infection can occur because of many reasons such as eating something contaminated which doesn’t suit the body and thus leads to intestine infection. Even the claim that the cases of such infection will come to half in the near future does not indicate how this will happen. Meat bacteria can be one of the reasons for Stomach and Intestine infection but not the only cause. Also the assumption that since bacteria contamination has been reduced to 50 percent, the infection rate will also decrease to 50 percent is not correct. It can be less than 50 percent or more than 50 percent as both the cases are proportional but not equal.
The claim that Excel’s meat plant has shown improvement in bacteria contamination does not guarantee that consumers who consume them are 100 percent safe. There may exist a percent who is not immune to the rest of the bacterias and hence can get stomach and intestine infection.
Hence we can conclude that the current system is flawed because of the above stated facts.
Question:-
“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.
Essay
The government conducts trials at meat plants more frequently and finds that the number of bacteria in the sample of the processed chicken has decreased up to 50 percent from the previous year. Also, It is being claimed that the incidents of Stomach and intestine infection can be cut to half if the frequency of Inspection increases. A possibility is also being provided that people who use Excel’s meat can be more safe as Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvements in bacteria contamination than other plants. However, I find a lot of flaws associated with the statement and the argument seems quite vague and weak.
Firstly it is provided that the government is conducting more inspections of meat plants. No information has been provided about the pattern of the selected plants and as well as selecting the plant. Failing to do so leads us to think about the governmental inspection plan. It is not clear if the government is able to inspect the majority of the meat processing facilities or not. Take an example, if a person randomly orders a pizza from a pizza shop, then it does not indicate if other pizzas are tasty or not. The same applies to Meat production plants. Investigating a random set of meat processing plants does not mean that other plant’s meat contain more bacteria or not. This also applies to a particular batch. In case if a plant manufactures a batch of meat where bacteria contamination is quite high then it is not sure if it is also being covered in the governmental investigation or not.
Secondly it is claimed that the number of bacteria has been reduced to 50 percent as compared to last year. It does not assure that the number of bacterias will not increase in the near future. Take an example of Stock’s price. If a particular stock’s price is lower by 50 percent than the previous year and we expect that the prices will go further down in the near future then we are not correct. The prices of that stock can increase or decrease based upon the performance of the company or any other reasons. It is even possible that the prices of that stock can increase by 30 percent next year. The same case applies for the bacteria contamination in meat. The trend does not guarantee that the bacteria contamination will continue to go down or not.
Also Stomach and intestine infection does not occur only because of the bacteria in the meat. The infection can occur because of many reasons such as eating something contaminated which doesn’t suit the body and thus leads to intestine infection. Even the claim that the cases of such infection will come to half in the near future does not indicate how this will happen. Meat bacteria can be one of the reasons for Stomach and Intestine infection but not the only cause. Also the assumption that since bacteria contamination has been reduced to 50 percent, the infection rate will also decrease to 50 percent is not correct. It can be less than 50 percent or more than 50 percent as both the cases are proportional but not equal.
The claim that Excel’s meat plant has shown improvement in bacteria contamination does not guarantee that consumers who consume them are 100 percent safe. There may exist a percent who is not immune to the rest of the bacterias and hence can get stomach and intestine infection.
Hence we can conclude that the current system is flawed because of the above stated facts.
20 Jun 2023, 12:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 3.5 - 4 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 3.5/6
The essay demonstrates some coherence in presenting the arguments and addressing the flaws in the given statement. The writer introduces each point clearly and provides examples to support their reasoning. However, the essay lacks smooth transitions between ideas and paragraphs, which affects its overall coherence and connectivity.
Word Structure: 4/6
The word structure in the essay is generally adequate. The writer uses a variety of sentence structures and effectively conveys their points. However, there are occasional errors in sentence construction and word choice that slightly impact the clarity of the writing.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 3.5/6
The essay follows a basic paragraph structure, with each paragraph addressing a specific point. However, the development within paragraphs could be improved. Some paragraphs lack sufficient elaboration or evidence to fully support the arguments presented. Additionally, the transitions between paragraphs are not always smooth, impacting the overall flow of the essay.
Language and Grammar: 3.5/6
The language used in the essay is generally clear and understandable. The writer demonstrates a reasonable command of grammar and sentence structure. However, there are instances of grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies in verb tense and subject-verb agreement, which affect the overall quality of the language and grammar.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 4/6
The essay displays a decent range of vocabulary and word expression. The writer uses appropriate terminology and effectively conveys their ideas. However, there is room for improvement in terms of word choice and variety. Some sentences could benefit from more precise and concise vocabulary choices to enhance the clarity and impact of the arguments.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of coherence and connectivity, with reasonably structured paragraphs and formation. The language and grammar are generally sound, although there are occasional errors and inconsistencies. The vocabulary and word expression are adequate, but there is room for improvement. Taking into account these factors, the essay would receive an overall score of 3.5 out of 6.
Coherence and Connectivity: 3.5/6
The essay demonstrates some coherence in presenting the arguments and addressing the flaws in the given statement. The writer introduces each point clearly and provides examples to support their reasoning. However, the essay lacks smooth transitions between ideas and paragraphs, which affects its overall coherence and connectivity.
Word Structure: 4/6
The word structure in the essay is generally adequate. The writer uses a variety of sentence structures and effectively conveys their points. However, there are occasional errors in sentence construction and word choice that slightly impact the clarity of the writing.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 3.5/6
The essay follows a basic paragraph structure, with each paragraph addressing a specific point. However, the development within paragraphs could be improved. Some paragraphs lack sufficient elaboration or evidence to fully support the arguments presented. Additionally, the transitions between paragraphs are not always smooth, impacting the overall flow of the essay.
Language and Grammar: 3.5/6
The language used in the essay is generally clear and understandable. The writer demonstrates a reasonable command of grammar and sentence structure. However, there are instances of grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies in verb tense and subject-verb agreement, which affect the overall quality of the language and grammar.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 4/6
The essay displays a decent range of vocabulary and word expression. The writer uses appropriate terminology and effectively conveys their ideas. However, there is room for improvement in terms of word choice and variety. Some sentences could benefit from more precise and concise vocabulary choices to enhance the clarity and impact of the arguments.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a satisfactory level of coherence and connectivity, with reasonably structured paragraphs and formation. The language and grammar are generally sound, although there are occasional errors and inconsistencies. The vocabulary and word expression are adequate, but there is room for improvement. Taking into account these factors, the essay would receive an overall score of 3.5 out of 6.
harshagarwal94
15 Aug 2023, 10:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please provide feedback! Thanks! Sajjad1994 Sajjad1994
The argument states that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut to half since the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year’s level in government inspections at selected meat-processing plants. Further the argument talks about one plant of Excel Meats where the magazine mentions 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. Stated this way, the argument is flawed and weakly reasoned which can lead to false conclusion at the reader’s end.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that an increase in frequency of inspection at a plant will lead to decrease in the amount of bacteria in meat. Further, the argument mentions that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent that means the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country be cut in half. This is flawed as if the same plant is subjected to inspection then there are higher chances that the quality of chicken at that plant improves, and the owner of the plant will also be cautious because of the inspection, quiet expected, by the Government. The argument could be improved by mentioning that increase in count as well as frequency of plants inspected would provide better report about the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken.
Secondly, the arguments readily assumes that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country would be depicted in the government inspections reports. The argument is flawed with this assumption that infection report of Government will cover each and every reason of stomach and intestinal infections which is unreasonable. The infection can be, for example, due to retail stores (after the meat goes out of plant) storing it for long before selling, consumer having the meat without cooking completely, etc. The argument could be improved by mentioning all the factors causing such infections.
Finally, the argument should answer the questions such as ‘What is the relation and how much is the impact of infection reported by Government on incidence of stomach and intestinal infections?’, ‘What all factors cause the stomach and intestinal infection’. This way the argument could be better explained to the reader.
As a conclusion the argument is based on evidence or reasons that have no legs to stand on and hence it is flawed as mentioned above. In order to improve the argument, the author should consider all the factors causing the stomach and intestinal infection and establish the reasonable relation between infection report by Government and incidence of stomach and intestinal infections.
The argument states that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut to half since the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year’s level in government inspections at selected meat-processing plants. Further the argument talks about one plant of Excel Meats where the magazine mentions 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. Stated this way, the argument is flawed and weakly reasoned which can lead to false conclusion at the reader’s end.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that an increase in frequency of inspection at a plant will lead to decrease in the amount of bacteria in meat. Further, the argument mentions that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent that means the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country be cut in half. This is flawed as if the same plant is subjected to inspection then there are higher chances that the quality of chicken at that plant improves, and the owner of the plant will also be cautious because of the inspection, quiet expected, by the Government. The argument could be improved by mentioning that increase in count as well as frequency of plants inspected would provide better report about the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken.
Secondly, the arguments readily assumes that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country would be depicted in the government inspections reports. The argument is flawed with this assumption that infection report of Government will cover each and every reason of stomach and intestinal infections which is unreasonable. The infection can be, for example, due to retail stores (after the meat goes out of plant) storing it for long before selling, consumer having the meat without cooking completely, etc. The argument could be improved by mentioning all the factors causing such infections.
Finally, the argument should answer the questions such as ‘What is the relation and how much is the impact of infection reported by Government on incidence of stomach and intestinal infections?’, ‘What all factors cause the stomach and intestinal infection’. This way the argument could be better explained to the reader.
As a conclusion the argument is based on evidence or reasons that have no legs to stand on and hence it is flawed as mentioned above. In order to improve the argument, the author should consider all the factors causing the stomach and intestinal infection and establish the reasonable relation between infection report by Government and incidence of stomach and intestinal infections.
