The following appeared in a business magazine As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing Promofoods concluded tha

Essay topics:

The following appeared in a business magazine.

"As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.

The analysis of Promofoods’ product problem might seem possible and logical at first. The action of the company is correct and wise, taking eight millions of the products back to the companies for testing. The method of examination of any dangerous chemicals known to cause dizziness and nausea also is a correct way to address the problem. However, some facts are away from the explanation that need to be taken before taking any final conclusion. For now, the author’s conclusion must be evaluated carefully based on some assumptions that are not yet warranted.

Promofoods has conducted a series of test to determine whether the product that is in question contains 8 chemicals know to cause dizziness and nausea, yet we do not yet have the clear picture of this test, whether the type of test is correct or not, or the result of the test itself may differ from the truth. We do not know yet if the test conducted is not yet enough to determine the existence of the inimical substances inside the product. Perhaps, there are numerous steps or methods of laboratory examinations, and the company may only provide a few of these mandatory tests. We also, from the explanation given alone, know whether the 3 detected substances that deem as naturally formed in the can is normal or not. The chemists only mention the inherency of the 3 substances within the product, yet they do not show any follow-up to correct the issue. Those three chemicals might still cause the sickness to the customers, and they do so then the evaluation is incomplete in solving the problem. Another possibility is there might be other substances that are yet unknown to cause dizziness and nausea. These other chemicals might be completely obscure to the public, or they might be newly found by any research or other evaluation in another case. If the company does not follow the complete data regarding the cause of the dizziness and nausea, then all the efforts conducted before are futile and far from enough to determine the content of the products related to the incident.

The recall of the products is indeed worthy of praise, showing the willingness of the company to investigate or even to make sure the bad products will ever reach future customers. However, we do not know the true scale of the products currently in circulation in the market. It is plausible that the figure of eight millions is not adequate to represent all products produced by the company. What if the number of cans in the market reaches 100 millions cans? Is the 8 millions figure enough to represent those 100 millions cans? Also, it is better for the company to analyze the products based on the batch of the production. There might be any fault during the production process that cause certain kind of foreign chemical enter the products. On the other hand, if these 100 millions cans are indeed containing the suspect chemicals that cause the disease, then it is better for the company to recall all 100 cans from the market as a way to show better responsibility. The overall consideration of the evaluation must be fixed and improved to better address the situation, and to make the result of evaluation more beliavable.

The non-technical issue may also arise and cause the poisoning of the foods produced by Promofoods. We always see the direct cause of the problem without seeing another possible cause that can surface during the delivery of the products. The products may be fine when they are already reaching the final process, yet there can be abnormality during packaging or shipping of the products to the market. For example, the materials of the packaging might not be the usual or the approved ones for the products. All these gaps must be fulfilled by the company to better solve this problem.

Votes
Average: 5.9 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 141, Rule ID: CD_DOZENS_OF[1]
Message: Use a singular form of the numeral here: 'eight million'.
Suggestion: eight million
...the company is correct and wise, taking eight millions of the products back to the companies for ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 207, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ucts back to the companies for testing. The method of examination of any dangerous ...
^^^
Line 5, column 794, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... other hand, if these 100 millions cans are indeed containing the suspect chemicals that cause the di...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, for example, kind of, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 11.1786427146 259% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 84.0 55.5748502994 151% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3143.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 648.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85030864198 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04537849152 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64574726052 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402777777778 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 984.6 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6653650813 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.25 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.5 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180539843221 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0549126751768 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0377268725139 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120263373664 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.019467280806 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 648 350
No. of Characters: 3074 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.045 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.744 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.558 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 220 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 170 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.609 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.607 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.449 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5