Please evaluate my AWA

Prompt -> “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.”

Essay -
The argument concludes that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut in half if the government inspects the meat processing plants more frequently. This conclusion is based on the fact that the number of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year’s level in select meat processing plants which were inspected by the government more frequently. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and incomplete.
First, the argument draws this conclusion based on the results of inspection of only a sample of meat processing plants. The argument does not provide details of the criteria used to select the sample meat processing plants. It is possible that these plants were selected due to some complaints made against them. Because these plants were not maintaining the minimum standards of operation and hygiene set by the government, these plants could have shown significant improvement after the inspection. Most of the other plants which are already maintaining the required standards might not show such improvements post inspection. This proves the conclusion to be wrong.
Second, the argument states 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. The argument only mentions that Excel’s main processing plant has shown improvement but does not provide any evidence to show that it has now reached a level which will be safe for consumers. The pant could have improved from Hazardous to Poor level which would make the meat produced by it unsafe for consumption. Also since only the main plant has shown improvement meat produced by other plants could still be unsafe and might cause stomach and intestinal infections in consumers.
Finally, some additional information would have strengthened the argument. As explained before, providing information on the criteria for selecting the sample meat processing plant could have helped to understand the real impact that frequent government inspections would have throughout the country. Also information about the standards to be met by a meat processing plant for it to be considered safe and also the quantum of improvement by Excel’s main plant could have helped evaluate whether the meat would be safe for consumption or not. The claim would have been strengthened if it mentioned these relevant facts cited before.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Actually, in order to assess the merits of a decision, it is essential to have a full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.