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 response to complaints that pets that had consumed their food experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness, the company recalled 4 million pounds of the food product. They tested sampled of the recalled product and found that all chemicals that were present in the food where those that are approved for use in pet food. Hence, it concludes that their product is not responsible for the symptoms and therefore, it should not devote further resources to the investigation. The company's conclusion relies on several unstated assumptions, which if proved unwarranted would undermine their position regarding the issue.
Firstly, it assumes that the method used to approve chemicals that can be used in pet food, that is determine which are safe to be present in pet food, by other agencies is not flawed. In other words, it means that all the approved chemicals are indeed safe for consumption in pets. It is quite possible that the agency or organisation that approved the chemicals did not follow appropriate methods to determine the safety of those chemicals and failed to recognise the dangers that some of them possess if consumed. As a result, even though the chemicals were deemed safe by them, there could be some that are potential threats to the health of the pets. In such a case, the pet food company's finding that all chemicals in their food were already approved doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that their product was not the cause of the illness in pets.
Even if the approval of the chemicals was a result of accurate tests, the company's argument depends on the assumption that the quantities of these chemicals in their food in within safe limits. The company only claims that none of the chemicals they used were harmful, but it is possible that the quantities of one or more chemicals were high and above the prescribed levels which then resulted in engendering the symptoms of illness in pets that consumed it. Hence, it is not sufficient to say that the presence of only the approved chemicals means that the symptoms were not a result of the consumption of their food.
Also, the company's argument is based on the fact the testing procedures they used to determine the chemical contents of their product is itself correct. The assumption that lies here is that they made use of standard testing procedures and tested samples from a large number of recalled items. In case they used faulty testing procedures that did not indicate the presence of other chemicals in the food that are not approved safe, then their presence of chemicals that actually caused the illness would go undetected. Then, the company's finding would be fallacious and the conclusion inappropriate.
From a closer look at the company's argument, it seems that it relies too much on certain unstated assumptions. The conclusion holds good only if the agency that approved the chemicals used standard methods, the quantities of these chemicals were within safe limits in the food and if the testing methods used by the comapny is itself right
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 559, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
... on several unstated assumptions, which if proved unwarranted would undermine thei...
^^
Line 3, column 101, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'determined'.
Suggestion: determined
...s that can be used in pet food, that is determine which are safe to be present in pet foo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 758, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...als in their food were already approved doesnt necessarily lead to the conclusion that...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 261, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ting procedures and tested samples from a large number of recalled items. In case they used fault...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, regarding, so, then, therefore, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 33.0 13.6137724551 242% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 61.0 28.8173652695 212% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2554.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 514.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96887159533 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76146701107 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6169188309 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.391050583658 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 787.5 705.55239521 112% => 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% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3105949068 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.888888889 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5555555556 23.324526521 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.27777777778 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.312548781475 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126154399135 0.0743258471296 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.161668900141 0.0701772020484 230% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204975824751 0.128457276422 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136135941288 0.0628817314937 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.