Rate this essay PLEASE!!!

[Infinite7]

“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…


The argument that has been presented cites misleading statistics and weak premises on which the conclusion was made and thus I find that the argument is seriously flawed and unconvincing. Having identified these flaws I will give an explanation on how to correct them.

Firstly, the author gives statistics that indicates the amount of bacteria decreased by 50 percent. 50 percent of what? The argument does not state the amount of bacteria found in the processing plant in the previous year (whether it was a lot or small).

Secondly, there is no mention on where the bacteria originated from. If the bacteria came from an external source, such as the employees, the meat (that is brought in to be processed, etc… So having the processing plant inspected will not make a difference on whether the meat-consuming public will be safe or not.

Thirdly, the meat might not be the source from which stomach and intestinal infections originate. These kinds of infections could be a result of ingesting vegetables that have not been properly washed or cleaned, unclean water, etc… Hence if the government were to have more inspections done at meat-processing plants, it would be a waste of their time, money and effort while the public continues to suffer.

Finally, the author has concluded that consumers of Excel would be safe since the main plant has been able to eliminate more bacterial contamination than any other meat-processing plant, failing to consider how much bacterial contamination has been eliminated. The company may have eliminated quite an amount of bacteria, compared to other processing plants, but not enough to ensure that the consumers of their product are safe from being infected.

To conclude, the argument would be strengthened, if the explanation above were to be considered and the author did more research to solidify and back his or her findings.

I seriously need to work on my timing . This one took me just about 40 - 42 min. Please rate my essay and give me your opinions. I'd really appreciate it.