AWA - Rate my analysis

[anuprajan5]

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."



The article in the trade magazine, even though it shows hope for optimism, might be wrong in its analysis. The article is flawed because of a number of reasons.The argument fails to create a connection between samples of processed chicken with meat processing as a whole. The article does not mention what proportion of health related issues are caused by consumption of bad meat. The article fails to define Excel Meats' relative position in the study.


THe sampling provided as a basis for the argument is based on samples of processed chicken meat. For example, if there was only a situation related to chicken meat, then that does not directly connect with how much bacteria is present in other kinds of meat. It could well be the situation that there are no harmful bacteria present in other kinds of meat.

The article mentions that the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could be cut in half. This is based on the assumption that such infections are due to consumption of bad meat. It may be that these infections are seasonal. Also the proportion of health related issues as a direct effect of meat consumption is no discussed. For example, if the proportion of health related issues is 1%, then it might not be worth the effort to institute frequent inspections because the government might have an acceptable lower limit of health related issues due to consumption of infected meat.

The article mentions that consumers of Excel meat should be safe from infection because they have shown more improvment in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant. The excerpt fails to define the position of Excel Meats relative to other plants in the report. For example, if Excel Meats were the worst offenders, they hve more ground to cover in terms of improvement as compared to the best performer. This could also mean that Excel Meats, today,might only be at the second or fifth spot even though they have shown more improvement.

The excerpt can be strengthened by creating a connection between the sampling of chicken meat and other kinds of meat or by providing samplings of bacterial infection in other kinds of meat. The excerpt can be made clearer by giving specific information in terms of what the proportion of health related issues are as a result of infected meat consumption. The stand on Excel Meats can be futher strengthened by providing information on where Excel Meats stood relative to the other plants in the study. As it stands, the argument remains flawed.