The following appeared in a business magazine.
"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods
requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods
concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This
conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the
recalled cans and found that, of the eight 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 that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other
kinds of canned foods."
A business magazine article stated that a company called Promofoods was convinced that their canned products that were reported to be causing dizziness and nausea amongst its consumers does not pose a health hazard. The author cites the experimental results that were conducted by the chemists on eigth million cans of tuna that for testing purposes. The author needs to answer or clarify the following three concerns to render the argument cogent.
Does the eight million cans that were recalled for testing were all shipped back to the company in the same condition? Perhaps, the shipping of the containers back to the company from possibly various locations, require different durations for shipment. There is nothing mentioned about the shipping conditions of the cans, either they need refrigeration or not, if they do, were they properly kept cool while the shipping process? The author must delineate the complete simulacrum of the situation as food poisoning is a serious issue and lapses if there had been any, might significantly corrupt the experimental results.
Are the recalled cans in commensurate numbers from all locations all are they concentrated from the place where most reports of health issues originated. It is possible that the reports regarding health issues due to the canned foods might be located withing a smaller region. This would require only a proportional number of cans to tested from those area based on the number of reports. If the reported cases were from a larger area possibly nationwide then one might ask that whether a 8 million is enough to evaluate the associated putative risk factor of the product. The author must state the whether the reports where cloistered to certain regions, or they were spread over a vast area and whether eigth million cans is a commensurate number to be tested. This would ensure the reliability of the experimental data.
How much potent are remaining three types of chemicals that the chemists suggest are found naturally in almost all cans, to cause health issues. Perhaps the three chemicals that are thought to be of common occurence in almost all cans are much more harmful than they are considered. It is possible that the three chemicals deemed natural in every cases for all the cans are conflating with each other resulting into some chemical that is more poisonous than the three of them considered individually. These conflating of chemicals to form a fourth and novel poisonous substance for specific temperature or external conditions is highly probable and must be investigated by the chemists. The author must ensure that the chemists did the experimental testings in such a way in order to answer the above stated concern which is highly possible. The author must clarify is at all such a formation of fourth poisonous chemical is possible or not and if so then how does it affect the consumers.
In conclusion, based on the following concerns stated above the argument is conjectural and stands weak. The author must fortify his argument by providing more details about the shipping conditions of the recalled cans, whether the recalled cans are enough to get significant test results and whether the three chemicals deemed naturally occuring the root of the entire problem. If these clarifications are added by the author then a better and cogent case will be made rendering the argument stronger and more detailed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 560 350
No. of Characters: 2815 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.865 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.027 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.638 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.455 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.451 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.318 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.308 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 346, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this area' or 'those areas'?
Suggestion: this area; those areas
...portional number of cans to tested from those area based on the number of reports. If the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 487, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ionwide then one might ask that whether a 8 million is enough to evaluate the ass...
^
Line 3, column 748, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...th million cans is a commensurate number to be tested. This would ensure the reli...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, regarding, so, then, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2855.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 560.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09821428571 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6849632071 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455357142857 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 889.2 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3179810862 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.772727273 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4545454545 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.04545454545 5.70786347227 36% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214190068806 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.064967020228 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06187997756 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129406204812 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.078674313851 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.