Argument essay

“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 argument claims that increase in frequent inspections will reduce the stomach and intestinal infections by half. The argument failed to mention several key factors,on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the conclusion is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that decrease in the amount of bacteria is due to the increase in the frequent inspections. It could be one of the possible reason but lacks evidence to prove as a main one. The argument have not mentioned that the others factors have remained same during the last one year.It is also possible that due to the new technologies and machines installed in the meat processing plants have decreased the amount of bacteria's approximately 50 percent as compared to last year. The argument will be more clearer if the author has provided the sufficient information to prove its credibility.

Second, the argument claim that due to the amount of bacteria in sample of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average will decrease the stomach and intestinal infection by half throughout the country. The is again weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate the correlation between consumption of meat overall and inspections on the processing plant. To illustrate, the report claims were mention on the basis of sample of processed chicken which does not highlight any proportion and statistics of the people prefer chicken most than half and the cause of stomach and intestinal infections. However, if author has provided the details such as the ratios of foods consumption's and the reasons for infection in stomach and intestine then it would be more convincing.

Finally, the argument state that consumer of excel meats will be safe as they have showed improvement more that the others. The argument is again weak and unsubstantiated. It does not answer all the questions such as, Is report covers all the meant processing plant and Excel's Meat is best among them? Do Excel meats available throughout country? And the rate of infection caused by consuming Excel meat is null or minimum? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidences.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.