Question: 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% on average from 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.
Response:
The author's claim that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country will be cut to half if the government increase inspections in meat-processing plants, has a few flaws.
The author has made a few assumptions to support its claim. First, the author assumes that everyone suffering with stomach and intestinal infections are all chicken-eaters. By keeping a check on the amount of bacteria in processed chicken (only) in meat-processing plants may not cut the incidence of these infections to half as there could be several other causes for these infections - such as the amount of bacteria in other foods like vegetables, other forms of meat etc. Second, the author does not explain how these inspections are going to be carried out. Will these be done randomly i.e. without giving prior notice to the plants? Will the inspections be carried out at the plant or will samples be sent from the plant to the inspecting bodies? Will the inspecting bodies follow a certain criterion for the chicken samples to be called safe and will these bodies make this criteria privy to the plants, so that they can make necessary changes? The author also does not explain the consequences the plants may face if the chicken is deemed unsafe i.e. will the plants be given a certain period of time before they are asked to close down? These factors can have a big impact on the inspection results and the amount of bacteria. The author has also made a statement that the consumers of Excel Meats can feel safe because Excel's main processing unit has shown more improvement in eliminating bacteria than any other plant cited in the government report. In making this statement, the author has made 2 assumptions - first, the author assumes that chicken processed in other units of Excel Meats will also be considered safe, second, even though Excel's main processing unit has shown improvement, the author assumes that all of the chicken processed in the main unit can be considered safe, which may not be entirely true. Consumers should still be weary of the fact that there could be chicken coming out of the main unit with unsafe levels of bacteria.
Because the argument leaves out some key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If the author had considered some of the items discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
Response:
The author's claim that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country will be cut to half if the government increase inspections in meat-processing plants, has a few flaws.
The author has made a few assumptions to support its claim. First, the author assumes that everyone suffering with stomach and intestinal infections are all chicken-eaters. By keeping a check on the amount of bacteria in processed chicken (only) in meat-processing plants may not cut the incidence of these infections to half as there could be several other causes for these infections - such as the amount of bacteria in other foods like vegetables, other forms of meat etc. Second, the author does not explain how these inspections are going to be carried out. Will these be done randomly i.e. without giving prior notice to the plants? Will the inspections be carried out at the plant or will samples be sent from the plant to the inspecting bodies? Will the inspecting bodies follow a certain criterion for the chicken samples to be called safe and will these bodies make this criteria privy to the plants, so that they can make necessary changes? The author also does not explain the consequences the plants may face if the chicken is deemed unsafe i.e. will the plants be given a certain period of time before they are asked to close down? These factors can have a big impact on the inspection results and the amount of bacteria. The author has also made a statement that the consumers of Excel Meats can feel safe because Excel's main processing unit has shown more improvement in eliminating bacteria than any other plant cited in the government report. In making this statement, the author has made 2 assumptions - first, the author assumes that chicken processed in other units of Excel Meats will also be considered safe, second, even though Excel's main processing unit has shown improvement, the author assumes that all of the chicken processed in the main unit can be considered safe, which may not be entirely true. Consumers should still be weary of the fact that there could be chicken coming out of the main unit with unsafe levels of bacteria.
Because the argument leaves out some key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If the author had considered some of the items discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.
