AA139

In this argument, the author recommends that the government should institute more frequent inspections to decrease stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country. This conclusion is based upon a government report on recent inspections. From the report the author also draws the conclusion that Excel Meats should be safe from infection. Plausible at first sight, this argument actually rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render the conclusion unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, it is hard to assess the reliability and representativeness of the report . The mere fact that selected meat-processing plants improved their sanitary conditions does not ensure that all the other plants in the country did the same. If the plants under inspection happen to be the best ones in the previous year, then even if they underwent no improvement, the result can still be better on average than the level of previous year. Or perhaps these plants were all selected from one region such as the capital city. In that case, the conclusion draw from the trial does not necessarily apply to the whole country.

Secondly, in recommending more frequent inspection, the author unfairly assumes that more inspections is the sole cause of the improvement and that stomach and intestinal infections are all caused by bacteria in processed meats. The author fails to rule out other possible alternatives that can explain the situation. For instance, the selected plants might have been informed of the trial period and consequently they took precautionary measures to improve their sanitray condition during the trial period. However, they could not bear the long-term costs of such measures if the government were to institute more frequent inspections in the long run.

And even if we accept that more frequent inspections can indeed contribute to less bacteria in processed meats, it is unwarranted to further conclude that stomach and intestinal infections can be correspondingly reduced. Perhaps most infections are caused by abnormally high level of bacteria in other foods such as ice-creams and canned vegetables.

Finally, the evidence that Excel Meats has shown more improvement in eliminating bacteria contamination than any other plant cited in the report hardly suffices to prove that Excel Meat should be safe from infection. The author simply equates improvement with an absolute level. However, without investigating the previous condition in Excel Meats, we can hardly reach the conclusion that the current condition in the plant can ensure food safety. If the Excel Plant had a extremely awlful condition in the last inspection,  a significant progress might just raise the level to a mediocre  one. Thus the level of safety in Excel still cannot ensure total safety.

In conclusion, this argument suffers from several critical flaws as discussed above. To better support his conclusion, the author would have to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that frequent inspections may indeed enhance sanitation of meat processing plants and that stomach and intestinal infections can be entirely attributed to bacteria in the processed meat. Also the author should present the current condition rather than the extent of improvement at Excel Meats Plant.

好多段阿