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 author of the article that appeared in a business magazine suggest that the numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea made by consumers of Promofoods tuna are not related to any chemicals that are found in the canned tuna and the same did not pose a health risk. However, the conclusion made by the author is based on numerous assumptions without any proof to support them. Before the author can make such a conclusion he needs to provide cogent unbiased proofs to bolster his claim.
The author makes his conclusion based on the chemical analysis performed by the chemists of Promofoods, who did not find any chemicals that can lead to dizziness and nausea, after testing the canned tuna produced by Promofoods. There are however numerous questions which the author has neglected such as - Do the tested cans belong to the same batch regarding which the consumers complained? Were the cans collected from the same place from where the complains were received? Are the chemical analysis conducted by the company chemists unbiased? Are the techniques used to analyze the canned food full proof? Unless the author provides disinterested proof to indicate that the tested cans belonged to the same batch and were collected from the same place that registered complaints about the food and tests conducted were not doctored the conclusion seems to be fallacious. Also, the company needs to get the canned food tested from outside chemists and the author needs provide documents to show that the results obtained corroborates the conclusion of tested performed by the company chemists
If we do consider that the testing conditions were unbiased, the author needs to provide further information on the amount of the three suspected contents found in the cans. Is the amount found in the cans within the limits that are permitted by the food department? Or are they above the allowed limit and are causing health issues? What other canned products contain these chemicals and in what amounts? Do people consuming such canned food complain about similar health issues? Unless the author answers these questions it is erroneous to dismiss the fact that these three chemicals are not the reason for the health issue faced by the consumers.
Lastly, the author states that the chemists had only tested for eight chemicals that cause dizziness and nausea, however there might be other chemicals responsible for the health issues which are present in the canned food. Since the food was not tested for these chemicals it is not possible to eliminate the fact that such chemicals might be present in the food. Unless the food is tested for such chemicals the conclusion that the canned food is not hazardous to health is dubious.
Under the given circumstances, the conclusion of the author is presumptive and difficult to agree with. To bolster his conclusion, the author needs to provide cogent proof indicating that the test results were unbiased and authentic. He should provide answers to the questions raised above to underscore his conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ions without any proof to support them. Before the author can make such a conclusion h...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.234962406015 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.21992481203 0.15541462614 142% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0789473684211 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0263157894737 0.0520304965353 51% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0206766917293 0.0272364105082 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.110902255639 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0733082706767 0.0416121511921 176% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.56253976629 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0394736842105 0.026700313972 148% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.142857142857 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0093984962406 0.0255425247493 37% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0263157894737 0.0127820249294 206% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3051.0 2731.13054187 112% => OK
No of words: 502.0 446.07635468 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07768924303 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.380478087649 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.272908366534 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.197211155378 0.208842608468 94% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135458167331 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56253976629 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 207.018472906 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.392430278884 0.469332199767 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 44.3785261128 52.1807786196 85% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 23.9047619048 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.8292402418 57.7814097925 147% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.285714286 141.986410481 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9047619048 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.380952380952 0.724660767414 53% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 51.1955985581 51.9672348444 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.57042253521 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.388169503219 0.441005458295 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.189072869913 0.135418324435 140% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.121804698478 0.0829849096947 147% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.644700881385 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.179088753617 0.147661913831 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.169593810633 0.193483328276 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117858866854 0.0970749176394 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.571560865193 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.130018757324 0.0774707102158 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288395903896 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0834723436659 0.0698173142475 120% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.