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.
The author concludes that meat available at Excel meats is safe for consumers and frequent government inspections will reduce incidence of stomach and intestinal infections . The authors line of reasoning is that the plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant and frequent government visits in recent past has led to a decrease in amount of bacteria present is food. However, a closer examination of arguments presented reveals numerous examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning.
First of all, argument is based on questionable assumption that the decrease in amount of bacteria in processed chicken is because of government visits. The high rate of infection in previous year may be because of some widespread chicken infection like bird flu. If this is the case then low infection rate this year does may be because the infection virus had been checked already. Another possibility is that the excel meat store may have started using better technology and better equipments which minimizes the rate of infection. Hence it is very unlikely to conclude that the low rate of infection is just because of the frequent government inspections.
Secondly, the author assumes that with frequent government inspections, the occurrences of stomach and intestinal infections will be reduced throughout the country. The frequent inspections alone can’t result in a low frequency of bacterial infections, unless, government forces food processing units to adopt better technological measures.
Finally, author infers that the consumers of excel meat are safe from inspection because its plant has shown more improvement than any other plant. This is hard to conclude because improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination does not mean any contamination at all. The excel meat could be better among the available brands but this does not imply that it is completely safe.
In sum, I agree that in order to make this argument more convincing, the author should provide the details regarding the amount of contamination present is excel meat and the permissible limit for safe consumption. The argument can be further strengthened with the details about the infection causes and the measures that government takes during the inspections.
“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.
The author concludes that meat available at Excel meats is safe for consumers and frequent government inspections will reduce incidence of stomach and intestinal infections . The authors line of reasoning is that the plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant and frequent government visits in recent past has led to a decrease in amount of bacteria present is food. However, a closer examination of arguments presented reveals numerous examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning.
First of all, argument is based on questionable assumption that the decrease in amount of bacteria in processed chicken is because of government visits. The high rate of infection in previous year may be because of some widespread chicken infection like bird flu. If this is the case then low infection rate this year does may be because the infection virus had been checked already. Another possibility is that the excel meat store may have started using better technology and better equipments which minimizes the rate of infection. Hence it is very unlikely to conclude that the low rate of infection is just because of the frequent government inspections.
Secondly, the author assumes that with frequent government inspections, the occurrences of stomach and intestinal infections will be reduced throughout the country. The frequent inspections alone can’t result in a low frequency of bacterial infections, unless, government forces food processing units to adopt better technological measures.
Finally, author infers that the consumers of excel meat are safe from inspection because its plant has shown more improvement than any other plant. This is hard to conclude because improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination does not mean any contamination at all. The excel meat could be better among the available brands but this does not imply that it is completely safe.
In sum, I agree that in order to make this argument more convincing, the author should provide the details regarding the amount of contamination present is excel meat and the permissible limit for safe consumption. The argument can be further strengthened with the details about the infection causes and the measures that government takes during the inspections.
