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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
11 Oct 2016, 09:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello,
Can you please kindly rate my essay. Thank you!
"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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a trade magazine, the author concluded that consumers of Excel Meats will be safe from any bacterial infection. The argument relies on the premise stating that Excel Meats’ performance in eradicating bacterial contamination is better than any other plants cited in the government report. This argument makes several unsupported assumptions and omits key factors which could be evaluated. While the author’s argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects.
First, the author falsely assumes correlation between frequency of government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples. This is entirely possible, however, the relationship can be reversed or can be explained by the third factor. For example, the bacteria have been steadily reduced and government began to notice the reduction due to its frequent inspections. It can also be that farmers feed the animals differently, which can eliminate bacteria. Moreover, 50 percent on average drop does not mean that all meat products are safe to consume. If one factory is 100% safe, but the other is 0% safe, we can’t safely conclude that all meat products are safe. Hence, the author should provide evidence to indicate clear correlation between government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples.
In addition, the author assumes that more frequent inspections will prevent incidents of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country. This, too, is a gross assumption because the argument fails to account for external factors that cause stomach and intestinal infections. It could very well be that consumption of fish or other vegetables can be the leading cause for stomach and intestinal infections. Moreover, if the incidents of stomach and intestinal infections only accounts for 1% of disease, it may not be the main concern of the government. Therefore, the author would need to conduct in-depth analysis on cause of stomach and intestinal infections and provide specific statistical information on prevalence of the disease.
Lastly, the author assumes that meat products are safe to eat because of more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. One cannot deny that the alternative is possible because Excel Meats could score the lowest in safety past five years. Then, Excel Meats can show significant improvement, which may still be worse than safety of other plants. Moreover, the author fails to clearly mention the total number of plants and the content of inspection, which does not allow precise and proper comparisons. To make a compelling case, the author needs to provide a specific numerical information on number of plants that have been compared with Excel Meats and how specifically Excel Meats have been improved.
In sum, the argument that the products of Excel meats will be safe is poorly supported and makes a number of critical assumptions. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide clear proof to showcase correlation between government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples. Moreover, if the author considers other relevant contributing factors and provides specific statistical information on improvements of Excel meats, the benefits of argument can be highlighted and the flaw can be closed. If the argument includes the key factors discussed above, it will be more convincing and thorough.
Can you please kindly rate my essay. Thank you!
"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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a trade magazine, the author concluded that consumers of Excel Meats will be safe from any bacterial infection. The argument relies on the premise stating that Excel Meats’ performance in eradicating bacterial contamination is better than any other plants cited in the government report. This argument makes several unsupported assumptions and omits key factors which could be evaluated. While the author’s argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects.
First, the author falsely assumes correlation between frequency of government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples. This is entirely possible, however, the relationship can be reversed or can be explained by the third factor. For example, the bacteria have been steadily reduced and government began to notice the reduction due to its frequent inspections. It can also be that farmers feed the animals differently, which can eliminate bacteria. Moreover, 50 percent on average drop does not mean that all meat products are safe to consume. If one factory is 100% safe, but the other is 0% safe, we can’t safely conclude that all meat products are safe. Hence, the author should provide evidence to indicate clear correlation between government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples.
In addition, the author assumes that more frequent inspections will prevent incidents of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country. This, too, is a gross assumption because the argument fails to account for external factors that cause stomach and intestinal infections. It could very well be that consumption of fish or other vegetables can be the leading cause for stomach and intestinal infections. Moreover, if the incidents of stomach and intestinal infections only accounts for 1% of disease, it may not be the main concern of the government. Therefore, the author would need to conduct in-depth analysis on cause of stomach and intestinal infections and provide specific statistical information on prevalence of the disease.
Lastly, the author assumes that meat products are safe to eat because of more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. One cannot deny that the alternative is possible because Excel Meats could score the lowest in safety past five years. Then, Excel Meats can show significant improvement, which may still be worse than safety of other plants. Moreover, the author fails to clearly mention the total number of plants and the content of inspection, which does not allow precise and proper comparisons. To make a compelling case, the author needs to provide a specific numerical information on number of plants that have been compared with Excel Meats and how specifically Excel Meats have been improved.
In sum, the argument that the products of Excel meats will be safe is poorly supported and makes a number of critical assumptions. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide clear proof to showcase correlation between government inspection and amount of bacteria in samples. Moreover, if the author considers other relevant contributing factors and provides specific statistical information on improvements of Excel meats, the benefits of argument can be highlighted and the flaw can be closed. If the argument includes the key factors discussed above, it will be more convincing and thorough.
Moderators:
188 posts
