During a recent trial period in which government inspections

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.

Anyone? Please rate my essay and suggest improvements.

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.

Good Luck

Sajjad1994, please help rating my essay:
5.4
The argument claims that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections will be cut in half if regular government inspection is instituted. At the same time, government inspection will not be required for Excel Meats since Excel Plant has shown improvement in eliminating bacteria contamination than any other plant cited in the government report. Stated in this way, the argument failed to communicate several key facts on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, it remains unconvincing and open to debate.

First of all, the argument assumes that the incidence of infections could decrease throughout the country if government were to institute more frequent inspections. It is based on the evidence that incidence of infections decreased at selected meat-processing plants during a recent trial period. This argument is a stretch since the decrease in the rate of infections at selected meat-processing plants due to more frequent government inspections may not imply that the rate of infections may decrease throughout the country if more frequent government inspection is instituted. For example, meat-processing plants may have different resources, standard requirements to implement enhanced methods to process chickens. It may be the case that government inspected meat-processing plants that have greater availability of resources to implement enhanced methods to process chickens and decrease the amount of bacteria in processes chickens. These plant-processing meat plants may have experienced decrease in the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chickens even before government inspection. The argument could have been strengthened if supporting evidence is provided that plant-processing plants experienced high level of bacteria before government inspection, characteristics of plant-processing plants throughout the country.

Secondly, it is claimed that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from inspection since Excel’s processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination compared to other processing plants. It is again a weak and unsupported claim since no evidence about improvements implemented by Excel’s processing plants is provided. In addition, the following questions have not been addressed:
1. How these improvements implemented by Excel’s processing plant led to decrease in the amount of bacteria in samples of processed meat?
2. What criteria has been used to compare Excel Meat processing plant and other processing plants?
3. As a result of implementing improvements, what was the rate of decrease in bacteria?

Without answering these questions, the argument remains a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

To conclude for the above listed reasons, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws. The argument could have been strengthened if the following information is communicated. First of all, the comparison should be provided between Excel processing plant and other processing plants. Secondly, more information should be provided about processing plants throughout the country. In order to assess a merit of a certain situation, it is essential to have a knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.

Good Luck

Sajjad1994, Can you please provide honest feedback for my essay? What can I do to improve my essay writing? Thanks.

The argument claims that “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.” Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination by Excel Meats implies consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection. This statement is a stretch. For example, there are several factors that must be taken into consideration for safety of meat apart from eliminating bacterial contamination such as proper storage and transport of meat, correct refrigeration temperature of meat, etc. Clearly, the argument that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe is weak. The argument could have been much clearer if it had explicitly mentioned other factors that insure safe consumption of meat.

Second, the argument claims that incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut in half if the government were to institute more frequent inspections. This claim is based on the premise that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average when government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between bacterial contamination of meat and incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. To illustrate, consumers of meat without bacterial contamination might be affected by stomach and intestinal infections if the meat is cooked with unclean water or oil, other ingredients which could potentially have bacterial content. If the argument had provided evidence that bacterial contamination of meat causes incidence of stomach and intestinal infections, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, if bacterial contamination were indeed correlated to stomach and intestinal infections, is contamination the only cause of these infections? Also, is there any evidence of meat consumers remaining safe and healthy by consuming any other meat other than Excel Meats? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as correlation between bacterial contamination of meat and stomach and intestinal infections, and elimination of other factors that could cause meat consumption to be unsafe. In order to assess the merits of the recommendation that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

PS: There is no need to re-write the complete prompt in your response.

Good Luck

Thanks for the evaluation and feedback. Any advice on rephrasing the prompt correctly? I did a rephrase in my GMAT and I believed I might have screwed up with grammar somewhere.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello, please help me rate my essay.

The argument claims that instituting more frequent inspections at meat processing plants will lead to reduction of incidents of stomach and intestinal infections by half throughout the country. In addition to this, the argument claims that 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 in this way, the argument lacks the relevant facts on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is flawed and

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that reduction in number of bacteria found in samples of processed chicken will lead to reduction in intestinal infections throughout the country. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any manner. Moreover, the argument does not mention if all the stomach and intestinal infections in the country are caused by the bacteria found in processed meat. It is possible that some other pathogens like virus are responsible for causing these infections. There could be some citizens who do not consume meat but still have stomach and intestinal infections caused due to reasons which are unknown to as the argument fails to mention them.

Secondly, the argument claims that consumers of Excel Meat should be safe from infection as Excel’s main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. This again is a weak and unsupported claim. Reduction in contamination at main processing plant does not guarantee any safety of its final consumers from infections. The meat could have been transported from main processing plant to subsequent retailers and restaurants for final consumption. The meat could get contaminated with infection causing pathogens at various stages of this transit.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In-order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

Good Luck

Sajjad as always to the rescue . Thank you so much.

Response Essay:

In an article in a trade magazine, the author states that during a trial period involving frequent inspections at selected meat-processing plants, the government observed a 50% decrease in the amount of bacteria in the processed chicken samples. The author also suggests that if the government were to initiate more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, that could call the conclusion to question. Also, the conclusion relies on unstated assumptions and unsupported claims, for which no clear evidence exists. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and falls apart at the seams.

First, the author readily assumes that the prevalence of stomach and intestinal infections are solely due to the bacteria present in the processed meat produced in these meat-processing plants. The statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous possible causes of intestinal and stomach infections in people. For instance, drinking contaminated water is a common cause of stomach infections. Another example can be vegetables and fruits injected with steroids and other harmful chemicals which is a very common practice among farmers these days. The author fails to clarify how the reduction in the amount of bacteria in processed meat will cut the incidence of these infections since both vegetarian and non-vegetarian populations suffer from these infections. If the argument had provided evidence that bacterial contamination of meat causes the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Second, the author claims that if the government were to initiate more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. This claim is based on the premise that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average when government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide any evidence that how the reduction in bacterial contamination is related to the inspections. Also, there is no clear information about how many plants were selected for inspection and what led to the decrease in bacterial contamination. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

Finally, the argument concludes that 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. It is again a weak and unsupported claim since no evidence about improvements implemented by Excel’s processing plants is provided. Also, the reduction in contamination at the main processing plant does not guarantee any safety of its final consumers from infections as a product gets transported to various other retailers and restaurants where the meat could get contaminated and result in infections. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing due to the aforementioned faulty assumptions. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.

Good Luck

Please help rate! Sajjad1994

The argument presented attempts to persuade us that if the government increases its inspections of meat-processing plants, the cases of digestive system infections would be halved. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation, and reveals numerous examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of this argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence; hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the author provided several data points that could not be trusted, on which he based his logic. For example, he mentions a decrease of number of bacteria from the previous year’s samples, yet fails to mention the actual significance of these levels. If the previous year’s samples were well within health standards set by the World Health Organization, then a decrease would not make a tangible impact on the general population’s digestive issues. Furthermore, the argument was very vague when it came to the improvement of Excel’s processing plant. The author tries to convey that Excel has done a better job than other companies, but what if other processing plants did not try to improve at all? In that case, any marginal improvement at Excel’s main plant would still qualify it as the “most improved”. Due to these unwarranted data points, the argument suffers from a lack of sound evidence.

Secondly, the argument’s claims often interpret evidence in an exaggerated manner. In one case, the author implies that a decrease in bacteria in sampled chicken represents a decrease in bacteria in all meats. This implication is extremely strong as we have no proof that the chicken sample can be extrapolated to other meats. Perhaps chicken is processed differently than beef or pork - then, even if the bacteria in chicken was reduced due to some changes in anticipation of government inspections, the processing for beef and pork may remain the same. Another instance of the argument taking a leap of faith is it stating that Excel’s meats are likely the safest to eat, due to its main plant being most-improved. However, we do not know whether most of Excel’s meats are actually produced at that location. In the case that Excel’s main plant only produces 20% of its products, consumers still cannot trust the other 80% that they may end up purchasing. To sum up, if the argument had provided evidence that all meat’s bacteria levels can be extrapolated from chicken bacteria levels, and that all of Excel’s processing plants live up to reasonable food standards, then the argument would have been a lot more persuasive.

Finally, the argument suffers from many flawed assumptions. What if the relationship between amount of bacteria and digestive system infections is not linear, but rather logarithmic? In such a situation, even a true 50% reduction in bacteria would not result in halved infections. What if the country does not have a strong government system, and the government reports were exaggerated to overstate the effect of inspections? In that case, perhaps we cannot trust these inspections and reports at all. Without credible answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the author’s claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons: vague or faulty data points, misleading interpretations of evidence, and baseless assumptions. It could be considerably strengthened if the author stated relevant facts to back up each logical step, such as if bacteria levels were dangerous, if chicken processing represented all processing, if levels of bacteria were correlated with digestive system problems, etc. In ordered to assess the merits of this argument, the reader requires more information. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Please provide feedback! Thanks!

The article published in the trade magazine states that an increase in government inspections of meat-processing plants led to fewer cases of contaminated bacteria samples in processed chicken products. The argument predicts that the customer safety of the products of Excel Meats will improve due to a strong elimination of bacterial contamination in its chicken products. However, the argument is flawed and is missing supportive evidence.

First, the trade magazine mentions that bacterial contamination in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent compared to the previous year’s level. However, reporting percentage numbers is insufficient to conclude that bacterial contamination decreased. Let`s assume that the government is usually taking 1000 samples and analyzing 500 out of 1000 cases as health-threatening. This would mean that 50% of all samples are positive. If the government decided to take only 250 samples in the current year and found 250 positive cases, 100% of the samples would be labeled as suspicious, even if the absolute of positive cases decreased by 50%. Those findings would be alarming and there would be no reason to conclude that the inspections were able to improve the quality of meat production. The author needs to prove the stated evidence by including absolute numbers besides relative frequencies.

Second, the reasoning assumes that more frequent inspections will lead to a lower incidence of stomach and intestinal infections. A direct relationship between both factors cannot be assumed. Ultimately, customer behavior will determine if the consumer will get sick from eating meat-processed products. The bacterial contamination of meat products during the production process does only provide information about the current hygiene status of the product. Bacterial growth will continue after food products leave the factory and depend on the correct handling and storage. Consumers might take less care about handling meat-processed products if the news report improvements in the quality of meat-processing companies. Reports about fewer bacteria-contaminated meat samples might be an incentive for consumers to be less concerned about the right storage and handling of meat products. The arguments need to stress the importance of treating perishable food carefully, regardless of the changed quality standards within the meat-processed factory.

Lastly, the author argues that consumers of Excel Meats are protected from infection because the company is working on improvements in its quality standards, aiming to eliminate bacterial contamination soon. The reasoning does not provide any further evidence of Excel Meats, including current quality standards, historical hygiene problems, and campaigns to improve the quality of its products in the future. More information is needed about the relationship between government inspections and the improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination of Excel Meats.

In conclusion, the argumentation published in the trade magazine is lacking strong arguments with supporting evidence. Considering the given facts, it is not valid to conclude that customers of Excel Meat are protected from food-borne diseases in the future. Based on the provided evidence and structure of the argumentation, the final conclusion is weak and not convincing.

Thank you for the great feedback! Do you have any specific recommendations for ramping my score up to 6.0?

Posted from my mobile device

Here you go.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-gmatclub ... 36251.html