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 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.
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
05 Feb 2017, 17:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
07 Feb 2017, 14:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
pup70pup
To begin with, Eliminate this - You never start writing a formal paper or letter by saying To begin with.
"provides evidence" No evidence is provided, its just a claim backed by a statistics. Don't confuse a claim with evidence. Evidence is a much stronger word.
Based on this reasoning, There's no reasoning here really, just a cause and effect (what the author believe is cause and effect).
Despite the author’s optimistic outlook, the argument suffers two flaws. Wouldn't be Suffer FROM two flaws? Avoid unnecessary wordiness or you end up making idiomatic errors. Suffer FROM allergies, suffer from cancer. People don't suffer cancer. Suffering is an experience from something.
Now i can see that you're logically seeing the picture but not putting it in proper words. Which might be lack of practice so practice writing and editing. it should improve this issue.
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.
I think this could be stated with fewer words.
So the author assumes that X sample is representative of the whole population, when in reality the data could be filled with outliers. This produces results that are not accurate and biased? - when you use fewer words you can say more and be concise at the same time.
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. This is fine overall. Causation argument is good, make sure you spend re-read your work and edit it. This will develop habit of choosing the right words. Saying more with fewer words.
I think the real problem is that the author make an assumption that based on the fact that product X has lower bacteria, this will lead to Y. Which in fact that may not be the case right, because there may be other factors that would lead to Y. Its like saying, milk is good for you, if you drink milk you will not get sick. The problem with this statement is that it assumes you are fully healthy and not eating other food that cause you to become sick. Say you're drinking milk but at the same time eating very unhealthy food, that will still lead you to become sick.
So the assumption here is that the only way you can get sick is only from meat bacteria. What is the evidence that meat bacteria is the main problem causing stomach aches? There is no evidence. Just a claim that reducing meat bacteria will lead to less stomach problems.... Do you follow the logic?
Your conclusion is fine as well, make sure you choose right words and explain very clearly the problem with the logic in clear words. Would give 3/6, length is good. With a little practice (3-4 weeks) you can get 5-6. Good luck! Kudos if it helps!
Moderator:
