Merely based on the results of the chemists from Promofoods, the arguer suggests that the tuna cans which are suffering from considerable amount of complaints do not pose a health risk. He then provides the analytical conclusion of the chemicals in the tuna, that is five common blamed chemicals were not found while three suspected chemicals were found in small dose. Furthermore, he claims the small amounts of these chemicals are naturally in all canned foods. The argument may sound appealing and convincing at the first glance, however, a few questions should be answered in order to evaluate the accuracy of the recommendation.
Fist of all, the methods and the details of the experiment conducted by the chemists should be revealed. Without the large amount of tuna cans being examined and a randomly selecting pattern, the results of the tests may remain dubious. Even if the chemists operated the experiment with large quantity and arbitrary selection of cans, the samples should contain the blamed ones rather than the produced ones. There is a possibility that samples produced in certain factories are toxic, which only make up a small portion of the returned cans, thus collecting the ones which are complained is more effective. In all, the methods and details of the tests remain unsounded.
Secondly, the interpretation of the results is assailable. The chemists made a simple comparison between the blamed cans and the normal cans, which leads to the conclusion that the chemicals found in the returned cans do not cause health problems. Nevertheless, the comparison is ungrounded, maybe the chemicals in tuna could interact with the chemicals in the cans and as a result, the dizziness is triggered merely in the tuna cans. In conclusion, the small dose of chemicals could possibly cause severe diseases.
At last but not the least, the argument is proposed with insufficient experiments and evidence. Possibility still lies in this situation that some chemicals which are not commonly reported cause the nausea and dizziness. Also, without the experimental evidence that such tuna would not cause the symptoms by testing the behaviors of the people who eat, the real effects could not be revealed.
To sum up, with my cogently discussion, the argument is still flawed until some questions above are answered to examine the validity.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
need more arguments. see a sample:
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1927 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.045 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.699 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.979 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 479, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...conclusion, the small dose of chemicals could possibly cause severe diseases. At last but n...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, while, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1982.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18848167539 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78072581579 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489528795812 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.289221656 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.588235294 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4705882353 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23529411765 5.70786347227 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.132677437029 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0435571537827 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475243260532 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0692552046287 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418384337762 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.