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 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
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
15 Oct 2017, 03:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeard as part of an articel 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.
My response:
The argument that appeared in a trade magazine claims that the government should increase the frequency of inspections at meat-processing plants because of the positive results in a recent trial period. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology.
First, the argument assumes that the higher frequency of the inspections is the reason for a decline in the amount of bacteria found in samples of processed chicken. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author compares the amount of bacteria with the amount in the previous year. It is possible that unusual incidents caused very high levels of bacteria in the last year and that the amount of bacteria reached its normal level again. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the higher frequency of inspections is the cause for the declined bacteria level. If the argument explicitly stated the bacteria levels not only of the previous year but of several previous years, then it could have been much clearer.
Second, the argument claims that the implementation of more frequent inspections will cut the incidents of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the whole country in half. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the author does not demonstrate a correlation between the frequency of inspections and the appearance of infections. The author mentions that the amount of bacteria in chicken decreased by 50% and therefore concludes that the infections can be cut in half. It is not at all clear how much the amount of bacteria in other types of meat changed and how much the bacteria in chicken contributes to the whole amount of infections. If, for example, the level of bacteria in other meat than chicken only decreased slightly during the trial period and bacteria in chicken only causes a small amount of infections, then the incidence of infections will decrease by a number smaller than 50% with more frequent inspections. Furthermore, the author claims that this cut will happen nationwide. However, he fails to mention whether or not the “selected” meat-processing plants are representative for the whole nation. If the author provided evidence that bacteria in chicken meat is the most serious cause of infections and that the selected meat plants are representative for the whole nation, then he could have been much more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe since the company shows the most successful improvement in eliminating bacteria. It is possible that Excel Meats shows the best improvement but it is also possible that they had the worst starting situation. In this case, they could still provide meat that, on average, contains more bacteria than that of competing companies. Without supporting evidence, showing that Excel Meats actually provides meat with less bacteria than that of their competitors, one is left with the impression that this is more a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore neither sound nor persuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Thank you in advance
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.
My response:
The argument that appeared in a trade magazine claims that the government should increase the frequency of inspections at meat-processing plants because of the positive results in a recent trial period. Stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology.
First, the argument assumes that the higher frequency of the inspections is the reason for a decline in the amount of bacteria found in samples of processed chicken. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. The author compares the amount of bacteria with the amount in the previous year. It is possible that unusual incidents caused very high levels of bacteria in the last year and that the amount of bacteria reached its normal level again. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the higher frequency of inspections is the cause for the declined bacteria level. If the argument explicitly stated the bacteria levels not only of the previous year but of several previous years, then it could have been much clearer.
Second, the argument claims that the implementation of more frequent inspections will cut the incidents of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the whole country in half. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the author does not demonstrate a correlation between the frequency of inspections and the appearance of infections. The author mentions that the amount of bacteria in chicken decreased by 50% and therefore concludes that the infections can be cut in half. It is not at all clear how much the amount of bacteria in other types of meat changed and how much the bacteria in chicken contributes to the whole amount of infections. If, for example, the level of bacteria in other meat than chicken only decreased slightly during the trial period and bacteria in chicken only causes a small amount of infections, then the incidence of infections will decrease by a number smaller than 50% with more frequent inspections. Furthermore, the author claims that this cut will happen nationwide. However, he fails to mention whether or not the “selected” meat-processing plants are representative for the whole nation. If the author provided evidence that bacteria in chicken meat is the most serious cause of infections and that the selected meat plants are representative for the whole nation, then he could have been much more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that consumers of Excel Meats should be safe since the company shows the most successful improvement in eliminating bacteria. It is possible that Excel Meats shows the best improvement but it is also possible that they had the worst starting situation. In this case, they could still provide meat that, on average, contains more bacteria than that of competing companies. Without supporting evidence, showing that Excel Meats actually provides meat with less bacteria than that of their competitors, one is left with the impression that this is more a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore neither sound nor persuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Thank you in advance
23 Oct 2017, 22:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Fabel,
Your essay looks great, especially body paragraphs!
I think you'd get 6 for this essay. You can alsi make intro more detailed like in this example:
Your essay looks great, especially body paragraphs!
I think you'd get 6 for this essay. You can alsi make intro more detailed like in this example:
Quote:
redabkf
Joined: 10 Jan 2018
Last visit: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Morocco
Schools: HEC Montreal '19
GMAT 1: 490 Q36 V20
GPA: 3.1
31 Jan 2018, 15:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
This was my version for the same argument. Please kindly rate it accordingly if you get the chance to go through it.
Quote:
Thanks in advance!
