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.
01 Oct 2013, 09:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Guys,
Please rate my essay and suggest improvements. My exam is in 2 weeks and I have just started writing essays.
Thanks.
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.
The argument that more frequent inspections instituted by government could cut the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections in half omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the government inspections at selected meat-processing plants simply explains a recent trial finding. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the government inspections, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the cause of this contamination, which stage of the process contaminates food or where this contamination takes place, whether at the processing plant or at the selling outlet.
First, the argument assumes that inspecting only selected meat-processing plants more frequently will bring down the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. There is no mention of other meat-processing plants. There could be a huge number of meat-processing plants and government only inspects selected of them. Even if the selected plants improve, it is not guaranteed that others will follow. There are strong chances of bacterial contamination in meats processed by non-selected plants.
Second, the samples tested are of processed chicken. This shows that argument assumes that bacterial contamination is found only in processed chicken and not in other processed food. There could be more bacteria in processed beef or processed pork which were not even tested and are a major reason for stomach or intestinal infections.
Third, the argument assumes that the consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because of the better comparative improvement in eliminating bacteria. What if its food still contains bacteria in a amount harmful for consumers. Even after comparatively better improvement, its processed meat just reached the previous level of bacteria presence of other processing plants.
Also, it is assumed that the only stage where bacteria can contaminate the meat is during its processing stage or at the processing plant. There is no mention if food gets stale or is exposed to unhealthy environment, it can get contaminated.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely claiming that more frequent inspections can bring the difference, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Please rate my essay and suggest improvements. My exam is in 2 weeks and I have just started writing essays.
Thanks.
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.
The argument that more frequent inspections instituted by government could cut the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections in half omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The statement that follows the government inspections at selected meat-processing plants simply explains a recent trial finding. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the government inspections, and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
Most conspicuously, the argument does not address the cause of this contamination, which stage of the process contaminates food or where this contamination takes place, whether at the processing plant or at the selling outlet.
First, the argument assumes that inspecting only selected meat-processing plants more frequently will bring down the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. There is no mention of other meat-processing plants. There could be a huge number of meat-processing plants and government only inspects selected of them. Even if the selected plants improve, it is not guaranteed that others will follow. There are strong chances of bacterial contamination in meats processed by non-selected plants.
Second, the samples tested are of processed chicken. This shows that argument assumes that bacterial contamination is found only in processed chicken and not in other processed food. There could be more bacteria in processed beef or processed pork which were not even tested and are a major reason for stomach or intestinal infections.
Third, the argument assumes that the consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because of the better comparative improvement in eliminating bacteria. What if its food still contains bacteria in a amount harmful for consumers. Even after comparatively better improvement, its processed meat just reached the previous level of bacteria presence of other processing plants.
Also, it is assumed that the only stage where bacteria can contaminate the meat is during its processing stage or at the processing plant. There is no mention if food gets stale or is exposed to unhealthy environment, it can get contaminated.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely claiming that more frequent inspections can bring the difference, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
05 Oct 2013, 06:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Anyone? Please rate my essay and suggest improvements.
20 Jul 2021, 21:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my essay!
Based on the premise that during a trial period, more frequent government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were accompanied by a reduction in the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken, the argument concludes that an increase in inspections by the government, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut in half. The argument also concludes that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from contamination because Excel Meats has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report. Stated in this way, the argument fails to take into consideration certain key factors which could call the conclusion into question. It rests upon some assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and falls apart at the seams.
First, the argument uses positive correlation between the frequent inspections by the government and the reduction in the amount of bacteria to establish causality. However, there can be multiple other factors affecting the reduction of bacterial contamination of meat. The fact that an increase in inspections by the government coincides with a decrease in the amount of bacteria in processed chicken does not necessarily mean that the latter is caused by the former. There could be other reasons affecting the bacterial contamination of processed chicken, such as the chicken could have been contaminated from the source from which the plants got the chicken (poultry farms, etc.). Another reason could be that the trial period fell in a year in which there was a recovery from a widespread flu such as bird flu, which could have led to more infections in the prior year. Thus, the argument would have been more convincing if evidence had been provided for the increase in frequency of government inspections to be the reason behind a decrease in the amount of bacteria.
Second, the argument concludes that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half if there was an increase in the frequency of government inspections, based on the assumption that the later would lead to a decrease in the amount of bacteria in processed chicken, which would, in turn, lead to a decrease in infections. This is again, a very weak and unsupported assumption. There could be reasons other than bacterial contamination behind infections. In fact, these two events could be completely unrelated. The argument could have been strengthened by providing evidence to establish a relationship between increase in bacterial contamination and an increase in the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. Moreover, the argument assumes the selected meat-processing plants included in the trials to be representative of the plants across the entire country. This assumption has not been substantiated in any way.
Third, the argument has come to the conclusion that the consumers of Excel Meats are safe from contamination, based on the premise that Excel Meats have shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report. This statement is a stretch. There is no proof that the meat from ExcelMeats is safe for consumers, even after the stated improvements. It could have been the case that Excel Meats had a much higher level of contamination as compared to other plants and thus has been able to show more improvement. Also, no information has been provided regarding what levels of contamination in the meat, if any, are considered to be safe for consumers and whether Excel Meats meets those requisite levels.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of faulty assumptions. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if evidence and related information had been provided to fill the holes in the reasoning.
Based on the premise that during a trial period, more frequent government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were accompanied by a reduction in the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken, the argument concludes that an increase in inspections by the government, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut in half. The argument also concludes that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from contamination because Excel Meats has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report. Stated in this way, the argument fails to take into consideration certain key factors which could call the conclusion into question. It rests upon some assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and falls apart at the seams.
First, the argument uses positive correlation between the frequent inspections by the government and the reduction in the amount of bacteria to establish causality. However, there can be multiple other factors affecting the reduction of bacterial contamination of meat. The fact that an increase in inspections by the government coincides with a decrease in the amount of bacteria in processed chicken does not necessarily mean that the latter is caused by the former. There could be other reasons affecting the bacterial contamination of processed chicken, such as the chicken could have been contaminated from the source from which the plants got the chicken (poultry farms, etc.). Another reason could be that the trial period fell in a year in which there was a recovery from a widespread flu such as bird flu, which could have led to more infections in the prior year. Thus, the argument would have been more convincing if evidence had been provided for the increase in frequency of government inspections to be the reason behind a decrease in the amount of bacteria.
Second, the argument concludes that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half if there was an increase in the frequency of government inspections, based on the assumption that the later would lead to a decrease in the amount of bacteria in processed chicken, which would, in turn, lead to a decrease in infections. This is again, a very weak and unsupported assumption. There could be reasons other than bacterial contamination behind infections. In fact, these two events could be completely unrelated. The argument could have been strengthened by providing evidence to establish a relationship between increase in bacterial contamination and an increase in the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. Moreover, the argument assumes the selected meat-processing plants included in the trials to be representative of the plants across the entire country. This assumption has not been substantiated in any way.
Third, the argument has come to the conclusion that the consumers of Excel Meats are safe from contamination, based on the premise that Excel Meats have shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report. This statement is a stretch. There is no proof that the meat from ExcelMeats is safe for consumers, even after the stated improvements. It could have been the case that Excel Meats had a much higher level of contamination as compared to other plants and thus has been able to show more improvement. Also, no information has been provided regarding what levels of contamination in the meat, if any, are considered to be safe for consumers and whether Excel Meats meets those requisite levels.
In summary, the argument fails to convince because of faulty assumptions. The argument could have been considerably strengthened if evidence and related information had been provided to fill the holes in the reasoning.
