A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.
The argument states that a pet food company, in response to the complaints received regarding the nauseating effect of the products on some of their pets, conducted a research to ferret out the root cause of the problem but they found no noxious element and hence, the author believes that the company should not devote any further resources for the investigation. While the argument presents some convincing facts, there are few things that are left uncertain like whether the 4 million pounds of pet food recalled was from the same center as the epicenter of the complaints or some other place, the efficiency and validity of the tests and if the products bought by these consumers are an emulation of the company products or the original ones.
The demography of the samples is significant to evaluate the argument as if the samples recalled are not from the same center as the region where there has been many complaints, then there is a possibility that the samples in that area are contaminated with something that is causing nausea, lethargy and other signs of illness in the pets.
In this case, the company must recall food from the affected areas and investigate further in order find the cause for these ill effects on the pets.
The argument completely relies on the test results, but it is uncertain if the test is amply equipped to dig out all the hidden chemicals in the products. If the test fails to detect some hazardous chemicals that is causing the illness in pets then the author's prediction that the company need not spend more resources for this investigation will be false.
The argument also fails to state if the consumers bought the original company products or the duplicate ones. This is necessary to evaluate as if the consumers bought a duplicate version of the company products then the company must conduct further investigation and avert any vicissitudes coming their way.
Hence, the above points needs to be examined in order to evaluate the recommendation given in the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 9 15
No. of Words: 342 350
No. of Characters: 1651 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.3 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.623 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 114 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 38 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.764 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.454 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.454 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 166, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...oducts on some of their pets, conducted a research to ferret out the root cause of the pro...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and other signs of illness in the pets. In this case, the company must recall fo...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 253, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...is causing the illness in pets then the authors prediction that the company need not sp...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 341, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd more resources for this investigation will be false. The argument also fails...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, regarding, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1679.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 342.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90935672515 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65131810721 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.470760233918 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 9.0 19.7664670659 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 103.461330523 57.8364921388 179% => OK
Chars per sentence: 186.555555556 119.503703932 156% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.0 23.324526521 163% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.33333333333 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.3108987796 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11773683714 0.0743258471296 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860714202456 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137313809431 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0962606507771 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.7 14.3799401198 144% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.91 48.3550499002 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 12.197005988 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.79 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 26.5 12.3882235529 214% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.