The author argues that the reason behind the dizziness and nausea reported by the consumers of Promofoods tuna was not the canned tuna after all. Stated that way, the argument fails to answer several necessary questions that needs to be addressed in order to evaluate the argument effectively. To justify this argument, the author states that on testing of the recalled cans, negligible amounts of chemicals capable of causing the reported symptoms was found to be present, an amount which is naturally present in all canned food products. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the argument.
Firstly, the author readily assumes that the number of cans tested by the chemist was enough to reach the conclusion stated. This is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demostrate how the findings achieved from the sample size correlates to the eight million tuna cans that were recalled. To illustrate further, just because a small sample size of cans were found to be safe, does not mean that all the eight millions cans are safe. How many cans were tested? Was the cans comprising of the sample taken from various batches in order to generalize the results more effficiently? To make the argument more convincing, the author needs to answer to these questions and provide more infromation.
Furthermore, the author states that the chemists testes the cans from the sample and found only three food chemicals out of five that could cause dizziness and nausea, an amount which is naturally found in canned foods. Thus, the author concludes that the dizziness and nausea reported by the consumers of Promofoods tuna was not because of their product. However, the author makes an assumption that there were no other chemicals, outside of those eight food chemicals, that may have caused the symptoms. This is merely an assumtion without any solid gorund. The author should answer questions regarding the content of the cans, and if there were any foreign chemicals present or not, in order to makethe argument more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author notes that the chemists found small amounts of three chemicals that is capable of causing dizziness and nausea. It was stated further that those three chemicals are naturally found in all canned foods.
However, the author does not provide a detailed amount. How much is "small"? Smal relating to what? Small is a vague term in the field of science. The author needs to provide solid numbers in order to bolster the argument.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpursuassive as it stands. In order ot bolster it furhter, the author needs to answer to specific questions in light of the argument and provide necessary information, probably by the way of a detailed report of the testing of the canned food.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
---------------------
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 471 350
No. of Characters: 2307 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.659 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.898 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.439 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.428 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.458 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 482, Rule ID: COMPRISING_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprising' or 'consisting of'?
Suggestion: comprising; consisting of
...How many cans were tested? Was the cans comprising of the sample taken from various batches i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ter the argument. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpursuassive as it stands....
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 138, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., the author needs to answer to specific questions in light of the argument and p...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, thus, after all, in conclusion, by the way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2382.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05732484076 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5979037873 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424628450106 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 725.4 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 61.7060684932 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.25 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.625 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.70833333333 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159922097165 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0519269897172 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0738551429742 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0832685028518 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513539479818 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.