TestMagic

abhishek_mumbai · 2009 July 20th, 08:25 AM

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.

The aforementioned argument, in asserting that goverment inspections have decreased the amount of bacteria in the meat appears to be coherent and fairly convincing at the first glance. However, further examination of the argument and its underlying structure reveals a number of flaws to such an extent that one can take neither the argument nor the conclusion seriously. Among the pivotal shortingcoming is its failure to address the relation between inspection results and quality of consumer meat products - or even acknowledge its assumptions that past improvements will continue in future as well as its negligence of the information necessary to substantiate its claims.

First of all, author fails to estabalish the accuracy of these inspection results. There is no evidence that these inspections results are not biased. Everyone remember how Enron went bankrupt even when audits showed that Enron was in good health. Enron was never reported to have bad debts or recurring losses but we came to know the failure of those audits only when Enron was declared bankrupt. Had author provided more evidence supporting the accuracy of these inspections, the conclusion would have been easily drawn.

Furthermore, the argument also assumes that future inspections will continue to improve the quality of meat just because it has done so in the past. There is no causal relationship estabilished between inspections and reduction in amount of bacteria. There could be alternate reasons such as time when audit was done. For example. If these inspections were done in less favorable weather to bacteria, then, future inspections will not improve any quality. The argument also suffers from incomplete sample fallacy and assumes a future course just from single year sample.

Moreover, argument states that Excel meat will be safe just because it has maximum imporovements. What if the quality of the Excel meats last year was so bad that it is still not safe after this years improvements. The argument fails to define the 'safe' in terms of amount of bacteria and incorrectly assumes that this year's reduction will bring it to safe level.

The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address aforementioned concerns, both its persuasive ability and its apparant legitimacy have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, one must necessarily conclude that the argument is simply an hastly generalization , filled with overreacing assumptions and deficiencies in information.

abhishek_mumbai · 2009 July 23rd, 06:32 AM

someone please review..

gotit · 2009 July 23rd, 04:10 PM

abhishek, I would give a 5.5 for this one.

- Overall, it was a pleasant read. It was clear and logical. Length is enough.

Now the things you can improve:

- The argument only talked about the samples of processed chicken. What about other meat? You didn't mention this obvious error in your "First of all" paragraph.

- You didn't refute the assumption in which the author assumed half of the country's stomach and intestinal infections were caused by meat contaminations.

- It seems you always misspell "establish" and "apparent". They were spelled wrong in two of your essays I've read. Some other random spelling mistakes are ok. The raters are generally not too fussy about them. But of course if you could eliminate them, you'd get better scores.

- Some grammatical errors. For example,

"Among the pivotal shortingcoming is its failure to address ..."

"Everyone remember how Enron ..."

"For example. If these inspections ..."

"The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. " - Run-on. You made the same mistake in another essay. You should watch out for this sentence in the future.

abhishek_mumbai · 2009 July 24th, 07:33 AM

The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. " - Run-on.

I had the same thing from other Earthlings too. I do not think it is run-on.. It is a complex scentence - first part is main clause and second is subordinate..
please note the usage of 'which' in subordinate.. The one of the ways to resolve run-on is using relative pronoun i.e. which in this case..
I do not think it is run-on.. in fact, it is a kind of scentence that will fetch you more marks from e-rater.. e-rater mainly looks for variety of scentence formation and strucutre of your essay..
what do you say? Am i overlooking something here?

gotit · 2009 July 24th, 03:51 PM

Yes, you're right! I overlooked the "of which" even I had read this sentence several times! Can't believe it. I guess the mind just skipped on its own haha. Lucky I still have 2 months before my G-Day.

I will then have 2 concerns.

First, would the raters overlook a sentence like this in same way as I do? - Maybe not....since they should be well-trained, right?

Second, should "the most blatant of which" be followed by "have been..." or "has been..."? I forgot the rules of "the most of which" in Manhattan SC.

abhishek_mumbai · 2009 July 26th, 06:17 AM

your first concern:
yes.. e-rater is well trained and will be able to find this scentence correct... Human rater doesn't go very far from e-rater.. they need to cut the costs..

second concern:
which refer to defects..
so it is actually most of defects => most uses the verb of OF construction i.e. defects here.. so plural verb is required..

2009 July 20th, 08:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
abhishek_mumbai Done with GMAT - 700 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Pune, India Posts: 1,182	Arg#1 : please review 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. The aforementioned argument, in asserting that goverment inspections have decreased the amount of bacteria in the meat appears to be coherent and fairly convincing at the first glance. However, further examination of the argument and its underlying structure reveals a number of flaws to such an extent that one can take neither the argument nor the conclusion seriously. Among the pivotal shortingcoming is its failure to address the relation between inspection results and quality of consumer meat products - or even acknowledge its assumptions that past improvements will continue in future as well as its negligence of the information necessary to substantiate its claims. First of all, author fails to estabalish the accuracy of these inspection results. There is no evidence that these inspections results are not biased. Everyone remember how Enron went bankrupt even when audits showed that Enron was in good health. Enron was never reported to have bad debts or recurring losses but we came to know the failure of those audits only when Enron was declared bankrupt. Had author provided more evidence supporting the accuracy of these inspections, the conclusion would have been easily drawn. Furthermore, the argument also assumes that future inspections will continue to improve the quality of meat just because it has done so in the past. There is no causal relationship estabilished between inspections and reduction in amount of bacteria. There could be alternate reasons such as time when audit was done. For example. If these inspections were done in less favorable weather to bacteria, then, future inspections will not improve any quality. The argument also suffers from incomplete sample fallacy and assumes a future course just from single year sample. Moreover, argument states that Excel meat will be safe just because it has maximum imporovements. What if the quality of the Excel meats last year was so bad that it is still not safe after this years improvements. The argument fails to define the 'safe' in terms of amount of bacteria and incorrectly assumes that this year's reduction will bring it to safe level. The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. Had the argument managed to address aforementioned concerns, both its persuasive ability and its apparant legitimacy have been greatly reinforced, perhaps to such an extent that it would be difficult to refute. However, as it stands, one must necessarily conclude that the argument is simply an hastly generalization , filled with overreacing assumptions and deficiencies in information.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 July 23rd, 06:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
abhishek_mumbai Done with GMAT - 700 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Pune, India Posts: 1,182	someone please review..

2009 July 23rd, 04:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
gotit Advancing my career Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Calgary, AB, Canada Posts: 135	abhishek, I would give a 5.5 for this one. - Overall, it was a pleasant read. It was clear and logical. Length is enough. Now the things you can improve: - The argument only talked about the samples of processed chicken. What about other meat? You didn't mention this obvious error in your "First of all" paragraph. - You didn't refute the assumption in which the author assumed half of the country's stomach and intestinal infections were caused by meat contaminations. - It seems you always misspell "establish" and "apparent". They were spelled wrong in two of your essays I've read. Some other random spelling mistakes are ok. The raters are generally not too fussy about them. But of course if you could eliminate them, you'd get better scores. - Some grammatical errors. For example, "Among the pivotal shortingcoming is its failure to address ..." "Everyone remember how Enron ..." "For example. If these inspections ..." "The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. " - Run-on. You made the same mistake in another essay. You should watch out for this sentence in the future.

2009 July 24th, 07:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
abhishek_mumbai Done with GMAT - 700 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Pune, India Posts: 1,182	The argument, in its current state, contains considerable number of defects, the most blatant of which have been discussed above. " - Run-on. I had the same thing from other Earthlings too. I do not think it is run-on.. It is a complex scentence - first part is main clause and second is subordinate.. please note the usage of 'which' in subordinate.. The one of the ways to resolve run-on is using relative pronoun i.e. which in this case.. I do not think it is run-on.. in fact, it is a kind of scentence that will fetch you more marks from e-rater.. e-rater mainly looks for variety of scentence formation and strucutre of your essay.. what do you say? Am i overlooking something here?

2009 July 24th, 03:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
gotit Advancing my career Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Calgary, AB, Canada Posts: 135	Yes, you're right! I overlooked the "of which" even I had read this sentence several times! Can't believe it. I guess the mind just skipped on its own haha. Lucky I still have 2 months before my G-Day. I will then have 2 concerns. First, would the raters overlook a sentence like this in same way as I do? - Maybe not....since they should be well-trained, right? Second, should "the most blatant of which" be followed by "have been..." or "has been..."? I forgot the rules of "the most of which" in Manhattan SC.

2009 July 26th, 06:17 AM	#6 (permalink)
abhishek_mumbai Done with GMAT - 700 Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Pune, India Posts: 1,182	your first concern: yes.. e-rater is well trained and will be able to find this scentence correct... Human rater doesn't go very far from e-rater.. they need to cut the costs.. second concern: which refer to defects.. so it is actually most of defects => most uses the verb of OF construction i.e. defects here.. so plural verb is required..

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests