GMAT Essays (AWA)

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.


In a recent article in a trade magazine, the author argues that increased frequency of inspection would half the incidences of stomach and intestine infection and Excel meat consumers are safe from infection. This argument is flawed because it wrongly assumes that decreased bacterial contamination would half the stomach & intestine infection and was a result of increased frequency of inspection. While the author's argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects.

Most conspicuously, the argument assumes that reduction in bacterial contamination of processed chicken occurred due to increased frequency of inspection. It is entirely possible, however, that the decrease may have occurred as a benefit of changing the process of preparation at the plant to improve the taste. Hence, the increased frequency of inspection has nothing to do with the reduction in bacterial contamination and the increase in frequency of inspection will not provide the intended benefit. Accordingly the author should study in depth the cause that resulted in reduction of bacterial contamination and whether that cause was instigated by the increased frequency of inspection.

Additionally, the argument wrongly assumes that decrease in bacterial contamination will definitely half the instance of stomach and intestinal infection in the country. This, too, is a gross assumption, as it could very well be that only a small fraction of stomach and intestine infections are caused by bacterial contamination. In addition, only a small percentage of the people suffering from these infections would have got infected because of eating the products of meat processing plants. The author needs to provide statistical evidence to support his claim that reduction in bacterial contamination would half the instance of these infections.

Finally, the argument regarding Excel meats relies on the assumption that the improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination of Excel meats is sufficient to claim that consumers will be safe from infection. One cannot deny that it may be the case that, even though excel meats' main processing plant has shown greater improvement in eliminating bacterial infection than any other plant has, it still produces meat that contains more bacteria than other plants' meat have. Thus making the claim that consumers of excel meat are safe from infection to be false. To make a compelling case, the author needs to explicitly state the amount of bacterial contamination relative to other meats and whether this amount is safe enough not to cause infection.

In conclusion, the argument that that increased frequency of inspection would half the incidences of stomach and intestine infection and Excel meat consumers are safe from infection is poorly supported and makes a number of critical assumptions. Not only does the author assume that reduction in bacterial contamination of processed chicken occurred due to increased frequency of inspection but he also presupposes that decrease in bacterial contamination will definitely half the instance of stomach and intestinal infection in the country. In order to make his argument convincing, the author needs to study in depth the cause that resulted in reduction of bacterial contamination and whether that cause was instigated by the increased frequency of inspection, provide statistical evidence to support his claim that reduction in bacterial contamination would half the instance of these infections and study the amount of bacterial contamination that is considered safe to avoid infection.

Impressions :
1) You have a good idea of what you need to look for w.r.t flaws. And if you did this in 30 minutes then you're on the right track w.r.t length !
2) Conclusion is too long ! That content should have gone to the other paras
3) Re-state the specific argument that you will be refuting in each paragraph
4) Instead of "While the author's argument has some merit, it is flawed in three respects." write something like - "However, on closer consideration, it is evident that the author's argument contains several logical flaws and mistaken assumptions"
5) You're right on the border w.r.t run-on sentences

5.0/6

I gave the exam twice and scored a 6 both times. My strategy was centered around a general template that I was able to create after around 20-25 essays ( Scary I know , I do love writing though ) So if you have a general framework, all you need to do is find your three flaws/assumptions and put them in !