"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 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 states that during a recent trial period in which government inspection, the amount of bacteria decreased by 50percent. And concludes that more frequent inspections reduce the incidents of infections. The author states that since Excel meats should be safe from infection because Excel's main plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. Though the argument may appear logical it is flawed because it fails to consider many other factors which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
First of all,the author's conclusion that incidents of stomach infections can be cut in half by more frequent inspections of meat processing appear to be based on the reason that meat is the only source of bacteria which cause stomach infections. This assumption is not true since any number of factors may cause stomach infections. For example, vegetables or other processed food may contain bacteria which cause stomach infections. Moreover, food may be contaminated during storage in the retail shops and also during storage by the customers or during preparation.
Second, the author assumes that bacteria is the only source of stomach infections without providing any sufficient evidence for example, a study of reasons which may cause stomach infections to support that assumption. Many number of micro organisms may cause stomach infections. In addition certain type of foods or health condition of the meat consumers may trigger stomach infections.
Thirdly, the author concludes that the customers of Excel's customers should be safe from infection.
This assumption is based on the government report that Excel's main processing plant showed improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. This argument is poorly reasoned because the argument does not provide information of Execl's other meat processing facilities , Proportion of customers who consume meat processed from the main plant to those who consume meat from other plants. In addition, Though the bacterial contamination might have been reduced , the meat processed previously which has high bacterial contamination was already consumed by consumers increasing the risk of infection.
In sum, The author failed to provide evidence to support his assumptions and also the causality of his premises and claims. In order to strengthen his argument the author should provide evidence to support that Bacteria is the sole cause of infections and that the frequent inspections prompted meat processors to take measures that contributed to the decrease in bacterial contamination. Further he or she should provide statistics of the excel company's consumers.
than any other plant cited in the government report."
Response
The Author states that during a recent trial period in which government inspection, the amount of bacteria decreased by 50percent. And concludes that more frequent inspections reduce the incidents of infections. The author states that since Excel meats should be safe from infection because Excel's main plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. Though the argument may appear logical it is flawed because it fails to consider many other factors which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
First of all,the author's conclusion that incidents of stomach infections can be cut in half by more frequent inspections of meat processing appear to be based on the reason that meat is the only source of bacteria which cause stomach infections. This assumption is not true since any number of factors may cause stomach infections. For example, vegetables or other processed food may contain bacteria which cause stomach infections. Moreover, food may be contaminated during storage in the retail shops and also during storage by the customers or during preparation.
Second, the author assumes that bacteria is the only source of stomach infections without providing any sufficient evidence for example, a study of reasons which may cause stomach infections to support that assumption. Many number of micro organisms may cause stomach infections. In addition certain type of foods or health condition of the meat consumers may trigger stomach infections.
Thirdly, the author concludes that the customers of Excel's customers should be safe from infection.
This assumption is based on the government report that Excel's main processing plant showed improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination. This argument is poorly reasoned because the argument does not provide information of Execl's other meat processing facilities , Proportion of customers who consume meat processed from the main plant to those who consume meat from other plants. In addition, Though the bacterial contamination might have been reduced , the meat processed previously which has high bacterial contamination was already consumed by consumers increasing the risk of infection.
In sum, The author failed to provide evidence to support his assumptions and also the causality of his premises and claims. In order to strengthen his argument the author should provide evidence to support that Bacteria is the sole cause of infections and that the frequent inspections prompted meat processors to take measures that contributed to the decrease in bacterial contamination. Further he or she should provide statistics of the excel company's consumers.
