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. 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 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. 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 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.

When the government reports a 50 percent decrease in bacteria in processed chicken, one might assume that the industry is improving in its efforts to eliminate bacteria. However, if the government inspectors count the bacterial levels instead of cooking the chicken samples, then the industry’s progress is illusory. The government inspectors count the bacteria on raw chicken, but raw chicken is rarely used to make chicken products. The government inspectors count the bacteria on cooked chicken, but this chicken is seldom consumed by individuals. Chicken is cut up and cooked into various dishes, such as chicken noodle soup, fried chicken, and chicken pot pie. Consumers do not eat raw chicken. If the government inspectors measure raw chicken, then their measurements are irrelevant to the overall quality of the chicken products. Even if the government inspectors count the number of bacteria on cooked chicken, then these numbers are meaningless. Bacteria in cooked chicken only matter if they are responsible for causing stomach or intestinal infections. However, if cooked chicken products are safe, then the number of bacteria on cooked chicken is irrelevant. The chicken industry has been plagued by food-borne illness outbreaks for years. For example, in 2008, a salmonella outbreak from Foster Farms chicken killed at least 76 people and sickened more than 800. If the government were to inspect raw chicken, then all chicken processing plants in the country would be shut down. Even if the government inspectors did not count raw chicken, they would still leave the industry’s processing plants closed. Unsanitary conditions at chicken processing plants cause bacteria to grow. The unsanitary conditions are not eliminated with increased government inspections, so the industry’s progress in reducing bacteria is illusory

The government report states that Excel Meats is the industry leader in reducing bacteria in chicken products. However, the government report does not state that Excel Meats has eliminated all bacteria from the chicken that it produces. The report indicates that Excel Meats has eliminated 50 percent of the bacteria from the chicken that it produces. If Excel Meats eliminated 50 percent of the bacteria from the chicken that it produces, then it would be the industry leader. However, Excel Meats does not eliminate all of the bacteria from its chicken. The industry’s progress in reducing bacteria is not measured or reported by the government, so the Excel Meats report is meaningless

The government report also states that Excel Meats is the industry leader in eliminating bacteria in chicken. The government report does not state that Excel Meats’ 50 percent reduction in bacteria in chicken is logical. The government inspectors do not count the bacteria in chicken, so Excel Meats has no way of knowing whether its reduction of 50 percent is logical or illogical. The government has no statistics that measure or compare the number of bacteria in chicken from different companies. The government inspectors do not cook chicken samples, so Excel Meats does not have any idea whether the 50 percent reduction in bacteria from chicken that it produces is logical or illogical. The government inspectors do not count the bacteria on uncooked chicken, so Excel Meats does not know whether the bacteria in chicken that it produces are 50 percent more numerous or 50 percent fewer in number than chicken from other companies. The government inspectors do not count the bacteria in cooked chicken, so Excel Meats does not know whether the reduction in the number of bacteria in chicken products that it produces is equal to the 50 percent reduction that the government report claims. The government report does not compare the number of bacteria in chicken from different companies. The government report states that Excel Meats is the industry leader in eliminating 50 percent of the bacteria in chicken. If Excel Meats eliminated 50 percent of bacteria in chicken, then it would be the industry leader. However, Excel Meats does not eliminate all of the bacteria in its chicken. If Excel Meats eliminated all of the bacteria in chicken, then it would be the industry leader, but Excel Meats does not eliminate all of the bacteria in chicken. The government report does not explain how Excel Meats is the industry leader, so the government report is meaningless

The government report asserts that Excel Meats is the industry leader in eliminating bacteria in chicken. The government report does not state whether Excel Meats is the industry leader in eliminating bacteria in chicken or in eliminating bacteria from chicken products. The government report contains only vague statements, and the reader is left to wonder whether Excel Meats is the industry leader in eliminating bacteria in chicken or in eliminating bacteria from chicken products. The government has no statistics that measure or compare the number of bacteria in chicken from different companies. The government inspectors do not cook chicken samples, so Excel Meats does not know whether the decrease in the number of bacteria in chicken products that it produces is equal to the 50 percent reduction that the government report claims. The government inspectors do not count the bacteria in cooked chicken, so Excel Meats does not know whether the decrease in the number of bacteria in chicken products that it produces is equal to the 50 percent reduction that the government report claims. The government inspectors do not count the bacteria in raw chicken, so Excel Meats does not know whether the decrease in the number of bacteria in raw chicken is the same as the decrease in the number of bacteria in chicken products that it produces.