|
139. 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. These results indicate that the trial schedule should be made permanent: by continuing with more frequent inspections, the government could thus cut in half the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country. 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.”
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.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-9-1 15:14:00
