A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the given argument, it was concluded pointedly that the food company was not responsible for the symptoms experienced by certain pets which contained its products, and hence should not allocate further resources to the investigation. While any business would not want to get involved in any investigation that may jeopardize its brand or productivity, the said food company may well have a good arguments if the following assumptions are tenable.
It was stated in the statement that 4 million pounds of food was recalled in response to some complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy among other symptoms. Hence, to say that the food company was not responsible for the sickness felt by the pets would mean to assume that the complaints received were not representative enough of the total number of pets that consumed the food products. Also, it must also be the case that the number of pets that experienced such signs of illness did so for other reasons other than the food. It might be the case that complaints came from a certain region where an epidermic broke out which had adverse effects on the pets within that area.
Furthermore, if it is true that the pet food company tested the samples from the recalled food and discovered that all chemicals found in the food were approved for pet food, then certain assumptions must hold true for the food company to be exculpated. First, the procedure used in testing the recalled food were not biased. Even more,the chemicals found in the food are not just approved for pets use by they are also in the right proportion. Thus, it must not be the case that there was production defect or that certain chemicals were applied in excess which may have caused the symptoms in the pets.Again,it must also be the case that not only were the chemicals in the right proportion but also they were not expired as at the time they were applied in the production of the foods. Not only that, it should be true that food samples did not contain any harmful or counterfeit chemicals or additives.
Ultimately, if the assumptions stated hitherto hold true-that the were other conditions responsible for the sickness of the pets other than the pet foods, that the procedure followed during the testing of the recalled foods was objective, that the chemicals used for the foods were indeed appropriate, original,in the right proportion, and devoid of other extraneous additives-then food company will have a watertight argument to exculpate itself.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 399, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'argument'?
Suggestion: argument
... said food company may well have a good arguments if the following assumptions are tenabl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 336, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...recalled food were not biased. Even more,the chemicals found in the food are not jus...
^^^^
Line 5, column 605, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Again
...ay have caused the symptoms in the pets.Again,it must also be the case that not only ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 610, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , it
...ve caused the symptoms in the pets.Again,it must also be the case that not only wer...
^^^
Line 5, column 907, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... or counterfeit chemicals or additives. Ultimately, if the assumptions stated hi...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 311, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , in
... foods were indeed appropriate, original,in the right proportion, and devoid of oth...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, then, thus, well, while, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2107.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95764705882 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73619845898 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425882352941 0.468620217663 91% => OK
syllable_count: 642.6 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => OK
Sentence length: 35.0 22.8473053892 153% => OK
Sentence length SD: 100.881944205 57.8364921388 174% => OK
Chars per sentence: 175.583333333 119.503703932 147% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.4166666667 23.324526521 152% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.16666666667 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.493573496227 0.218282227539 226% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.227363000266 0.0743258471296 306% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.146205485311 0.0701772020484 208% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.336157814005 0.128457276422 262% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117596931755 0.0628817314937 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.41 48.3550499002 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 11.1389221557 144% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.