Sample GMAT Essays - Excel Meats Contamination Prompt

The following is taken from a sample essay prompt (Analytical Writing Assignment Section) of the GMAT:

The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper. 

"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." 

You would often see the following instructions after reading the essay prompt:

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

No copyright infringement is intended.

Written below are some sample essays that would help you in your preparation: 

Sample Essay #1

The author concludes that meat available at Excel meats is safe for consumers and frequent government inspections will reduce incidence of stomach and intestinal infections . The authors line of reasoning is that the plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant and frequent government visits in recent past has led to a decrease in amount of bacteria present is food. However, a closer examination of arguments presented reveals numerous examples of leaps of faith and poor reasoning.

First of all, argument is based on questionable assumption that the decrease in amount of bacteria in processed chicken is because of government visits. The high rate of infection in previous year may be because of some widespread chicken infection like bird flu. If this is the case then low infection rate this year does may be because the infection virus had been checked already. Another possibility is that the excel meat store may have started using better technology and better equipments which minimizes the rate of infection. Hence it is very unlikely to conclude that the low rate of infection is just because of the frequent government inspections.

Secondly, the author assumes that with frequent government inspections, the occurrences of stomach and intestinal infections will be reduced throughout the country. The frequent inspections alone can't result in a low frequency of bacterial infections, unless, government forces food processing units to adopt better technological measures.

Finally, author infers that the consumers of excel meat are safe from inspection because its plant has shown more improvement than any other plant. This is hard to conclude because improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination does not mean any contamination at all. The excel meat could be better among the available brands but this does not imply that it is completely safe.

In sum, I agree that in order to make this argument more convincing, the author should provide the details regarding the amount of contamination present is excel meat and the permissible limit for safe consumption. The argument can be further strengthened with the details about the infection causes and the measures that government takes during the inspections.

Sample Essay #2

The argument states that the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased half on average from the previous year's level because of frequent government inspection. Therefore, if government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections could drop in half. Furthermore, because Excel's main plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than plants cited in the report, excel's meat product should be safe to its consumers. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the main conclusion of the argument is that if government conducted more inspection, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections could decrease in half. The argument assumes that more inspection leads to decreased amount of bacteria in meat, and then decreased amount of bacteria in meat leads to less incidence of infections. Consider that there might be other reasons that cause incidence of infections other than decreased amount of bacteria in meat. For example, what if bacteria in dirty water was the real reason causing the infections, if it is true, reducing the amount of bacteria in meat could not help reduce the chance of those infections. Thus, the argument is poor reasoning unless other possible explanations have been considered and ruled out.

Second, the author uses the positive correlation between government inspection and decreased amount of bacteria in meat to establish causality. However, the fact that government inspection coincides with decreased amount of bacteria in meat dose not necessary prove that the former event is responsible for the latter. If the argument had provided evidence that government inspection was the only reason that the amount of bacteria in meat decreased, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Third, the author fails to prove that plants cited in the report are representative of all plants in the industry and that Excel’s main plant is representative of all plants within the company. Also the author provides no information whether the level that Excel’s main plant has improved to is above that safe needed. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

Sample Essay #3

In the argument, the author reaches the conclusion that the trial schedule should be made permanent. To buttress his conclusion, the author points out that the amount of bacteria in samples of selected processed-chicken-meat reduced where the inspections are frequent. In addition, the author assumes that the bacteria in processed-meat can be further reduced by means of frequent inspections. Furthermore, the author cites the example of Excel Meats to strengthen his argument. At first glance, the argument is somewhat plausible, but a closer examination will reveal how groundless it is. The argument has several flaws as follows.

First, the argument suffers insufficient sample. To support his argument, the author cites an example that amount of bacteria in selected samples of processed chicken reduced greatly during a recent trial period in which government inspections are frequent. However, the author does not provide any evidence whether the selected sample is a typical one that can represent the whole population to illustrate the phenomena. Unless the author can prove that the selected sample is typical enough to represent the whole population or the author can cite more samples, otherwise the conclusion is unwarranted.

Second, the argument commits a fallacy of casual oversimplification. The author assumes that the continuing with more frequent inspections cause the reduction of the bacteria. Yet these two events are only positive related. No evidence shows that they are casual correlated. For instance, it is entirely possible that the reduction in bacteria can be attributable to more advanced technology. Without considering the other factors, it's hasty to make such a conclusion that the former one is the cause of the latter.

Third, the argument relies on a gratitous assumption. The author assumes that consumers of Excel Meat should be more safe from infection because its processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacteria contamination. While some other cases such as instinct pollution, environment pollution may also become the sources of infection. The conclusion is not well established unless the author can offer example to rule out other pollution sources that might pose threatens to the meat processed by Excel Meat.

To conclude, the argument is not convincing unless the author can provide more evidence in the following three aspects. 1) The selected samples can represent the whole population. 2) The permanent inspection is the only factor that causes the reduction in the bacteria of processed-meat. 3) Excel Meats are safer from infection because its main processing plant has shown more improvement in bacterial contamination than any other plant.