Rate My AWA

I get extremely nervous when it comes to writing. I have a lot of ideas, but when I start to write them down, I keep getting ahead of myself. As a result, my ideas tend to get jumbled. Please let me know how I can improve on my writing and if you have any tips. Thanks. Here is a sample of my writing.


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.



To begin with, the author provides evidence that due to the increased frequency of government inspections at selected meat-processing plants, this accounted for an average of 50 percent reduction from previous year’s level of bacterial in samples of processed chicken. Based on this reasoning, the author assumes that frequent inspections would lower the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the county in half, and that consumers of Excel Meats would be safe from such infection because of the documentation of Excel’s main processing plants improvement in the government report. Despite the author’s optimistic outlook, the argument suffers two flaws.

First, the author assumes that the state and conditions of the selected meat-processing plants used to conduct the data is equivalent to the environment of all meat-processing plants in the country. Those selected meat-processing plants during the trial period could have been the worst plants in the nation for faulty health and safety standards. Therefore, such inspections would render the author’s desired results. However, the author cannot generalize the conditions found in the selected meat-processing plants to those in the country.

Second, even though there is a correlation between frequent inspections and lowered amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken, there is not enough evidence to prove that there is a causation. As a result, the author cannot claim that the improvement of Excel’s main processing plant is enough to ensure the safety of its consumers. It is not credible to compare Excel Meats’s improvement to other plants cited in the government report, because those plants were cited due to faulty standard protocol. Without further information regarding Excel Meats in comparison with other plants not cited, the argument is not valid as it stands.

In conclusion, the author’s assumptions is not warranted by accurate and reliable evidence. To strengthen that frequent inspections would lower the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken, and that Excel Meat’s improvement of eliminating bacteria contamination is enough to ensure the safety of its consumers, the author needs to provide evidence that the meat-processing plants in the trial period is similar to those of the country. Also the author needs to rule out factors that contributed to the the reduction of bacteria levels other than the government inspections.