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

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.

In the given article, the author argues that Promofoods tuna has no risk on consumers’ health even though there have been a number of complaints of dizziness and nausea among the people who have eaten their products. However, the argument is flawed for numerous reasons, as it relies upon unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, based on the result of the investigation, which was conducted by the chemists who work for Promofoods, the author claims innocuousness of Promofoods tuna. However, the author hastily assumes that the chemists hired by Promofoods must be levelheaded. Even though this might be the case, it is also possible that chemists from Promofoods are biased and neglected salient experiment results that indicate the risk of Promofoods tuna. Therefore, to robust the argument, the it should be asked that whether the chemists from Promofoods are credible or that if other chemists would draw the same result if they are not hired by Promofoods.

Secondly, even if the assumption above is somehow guaranteed to be true, the author hastily unreasonably assumes that those eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea are the only possible reason of the consumers’ symptoms. However, the author provides no adequate explain how the potential problem causing chemicals have been narrowed down to those only eight. It is possible that it is a recently found chemical that caused problem, or it may be other chemical that are not widely known for causing such symptoms. Thus, without considering if any other chemicals, the author cannot simply argue that Promofoods tuna has no problem.

Lastly, even conceding that those eight chemicals are the only options, the author does not provide adequate information regarding those three chemicals found in the sampled Promofoods tuna cans. It is assumed that small amounts of those three chemicals must be completely innocuous just because they are naturally occurred in all canned foods. However, it is not provided that how long it normally takes those chemicals to produce in canned foods and that whether other companies prevent those chemicals occurrence by setting expiry dates. It is possible that those people experienced the symptoms of dizziness and nausea after intake of Promofoods tuna because the expiry date had been set too long enough to allow those deleterious chemicals to produce in cans. To make the argument more cogent, the author should ask if there was any difference in handling and managing tuna cans between Promofoods and other can foods companies.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore it is dubious. In order to evaluate the value of the argument, it is essential to carefully consider the questions suggested above.

Votes
Average: 8.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 476, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...una. Therefore, to robust the argument, the it should be asked that whether the chemis...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 496, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...t whether other companies prevent those chemicals occurrence by setting expiry dates. It ...
^^^^^^^^^

Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in conclusion']

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

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.218367346939 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.19387755102 0.15541462614 125% => OK
Adjectives: 0.065306122449 0.0836205057962 78% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0755102040816 0.0520304965353 145% => OK
Pronouns: 0.030612244898 0.0272364105082 112% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132653061224 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0714285714286 0.0416121511921 172% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78033767281 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0183673469388 0.026700313972 69% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.108163265306 0.113004496875 96% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0183673469388 0.0255425247493 72% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0163265306122 0.0127820249294 128% => OK

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2803.0 2731.13054187 103% => OK
No of words: 444.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.31306306306 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.40990990991 0.378187486979 108% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.310810810811 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.245495495495 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.148648648649 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78033767281 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 207.018472906 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472972972973 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 52.6194116191 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 26.1176470588 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6760351855 57.7814097925 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 164.882352941 141.986410481 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1176470588 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.823529411765 0.724660767414 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 57.1987281399 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.40816326531 1.8405768891 77% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.446694272281 0.441005458295 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.178287535268 0.135418324435 132% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0786493264579 0.0829849096947 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.632222771767 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.133996350971 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203451331367 0.193483328276 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115366849073 0.0970749176394 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.410832756754 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0582746053322 0.0774707102158 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321943022754 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0719893625546 0.0698173142475 103% => OK

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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: This is not the final score. 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- not OK. were these chemicals found within safe proportions?

argument 3 -- not exactly. it could be that the food becomes bad for ingestion after being mixed with external agents such as water or other food supplements
--------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 444 350
No. of Characters: 2295 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.59 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.169 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.636 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.123 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.618 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5