hi just started off the preparation with Essays....Would someone be kind enough to mark my first essay (argument analysis)....the feedback will definitely give me the motivation much needed ahead
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 the aforementioned paragraph the arguer concludes that Government inspections of food industries should continue as it can cut the stomach and intestinal infections by half. To bolster this prediction the writer cites that during random inspections amount of bacteria infested poultry reduced by half percentage wise and then correlates this to the example of Excel Meats with maximum improvement. The author assertion, based on the statistics, appears at first glance to be a legitimate and very convincing argument. However upon further examination of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of fallacies become evident.
Among its most pivotal shortcomings, is the failure to elaborate the random sample size. Moreover, the author has not mentioned any information regarding the processing plants involved in the examination. Were these poultry plants newly established or old ones? There cannot be an accurate comparative analysis between a newly established processing plant equipped with new machinery and an old one. How many consumers due they cater to? It is not necessary that the plants selected for the checking actually provide meat to the whole country. We have not been given these statistics as they can be very significant in making this argument compelling.
Secondly the government inspection might not be the only reason for the plants improvement. Perhaps these plants, implemented new measures like purchase new equipment, started strict hygiene rules for employees as part of their new strategy. Also, we do not know the number of people who eat processed chicken meat in the country.
Thirdly the Excel Meats plant previous records have not been stated so we have no solid data and projections from previous years to compare with. This analogy might not be applicable on this plant as we only have information on its main plant and not the sister plants that it might have.
In conclusion, we are unable to see if there is a correlation between the government inspections with the drastic decrease in bacteria in food in processing plants. To better substantiate this argument details of the plants involved in the inspections should be provided.
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 the aforementioned paragraph the arguer concludes that Government inspections of food industries should continue as it can cut the stomach and intestinal infections by half. To bolster this prediction the writer cites that during random inspections amount of bacteria infested poultry reduced by half percentage wise and then correlates this to the example of Excel Meats with maximum improvement. The author assertion, based on the statistics, appears at first glance to be a legitimate and very convincing argument. However upon further examination of the argument and its underlying structure, a number of fallacies become evident.
Among its most pivotal shortcomings, is the failure to elaborate the random sample size. Moreover, the author has not mentioned any information regarding the processing plants involved in the examination. Were these poultry plants newly established or old ones? There cannot be an accurate comparative analysis between a newly established processing plant equipped with new machinery and an old one. How many consumers due they cater to? It is not necessary that the plants selected for the checking actually provide meat to the whole country. We have not been given these statistics as they can be very significant in making this argument compelling.
Secondly the government inspection might not be the only reason for the plants improvement. Perhaps these plants, implemented new measures like purchase new equipment, started strict hygiene rules for employees as part of their new strategy. Also, we do not know the number of people who eat processed chicken meat in the country.
Thirdly the Excel Meats plant previous records have not been stated so we have no solid data and projections from previous years to compare with. This analogy might not be applicable on this plant as we only have information on its main plant and not the sister plants that it might have.
In conclusion, we are unable to see if there is a correlation between the government inspections with the drastic decrease in bacteria in food in processing plants. To better substantiate this argument details of the plants involved in the inspections should be provided.
