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."



My Answer:


The argument that the more frequent government inspections will reduce the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country by half lacks some of the important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument starts by stating that during a recent a trial period in which government did inspection at certain selected meat-processing plants it was found that the amount of bacteria in the samples of processed chickens decreased by half. But this alone does not provide logical reasoning that inspections should be done more frequently.

First of all, the argument provides no statistical data showing the comparison of amount of bacteria in meat samples for past 2-3 years. If the statiscal data have been included then that would make teh reasoning stronger and moe logical. It could be ppssible that in the last to last year the amount of bacteria was even less than found in recent survey. It is also pissble that the same trend was there in the past years as well apart from the last year. The presense of large amount of bacteris found in processed chicken could be due to soem other factor such as any disease occured among the chickens and that could have increase the bacteria level in their body even before preparaing the chichken.


Second, the argument says that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country decreased could be cut to half if the frequency of inspections is increased. This statement doesn't address other reasons that are possible for the reduction of stomach and intestinal infections. It could be possible that the most people of the country have stopped eating some thing else that might be the major cause of stomach infections. It could be a coincidence that both of these events occured at almost same time.

Third, the argument gives example of Excel Meats and focussed that the consumers of Excel meats has shown improvement in eliminating the bacterial contamination than any other plant citde in report from the recent trial period. It is possible that Excel meat processing plant opened this year only and they just made minor improvements due to inspections. So, there is no point of comparing the excel meats to any other meat processing plants because Excel meats wasn't there last year.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could have been persuasive if it included some empirical data showing comparisons of amount of bacteris from different meat processing plants. Also, it could be strenghthened considerably if it included more convincing facts and examples. But without these points the argument is conspicuously remains unsubtianted and open for debate.