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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
There are many un proven assumptions in the stated argument. As a result it cannot be firmly concluded that pet food is free of contamination. The following explanation will help to elucidate more clearly.
The most bromide fallacy is assuming the food eaten by the pets who were suffering from illness will contain the same contamination as that of 4 million pounds of pet food that was tested. It is possible that the food manufactured two months ago may contain some harmful ingredients. The processing of food would have been compromised. To exemplify, a person in charge of food processing line would be a malingerer and have not paid proper attention towards the food processing. As a result a fault would have been overlooked and this food was sent to stores. Pets consuming this food are naturally susceptible to illness.
Moreover the testing methods are also doubtable. How can someone be sure that the testing method implemented are good and does not have problems. A bad equipment or faulty equipment showing good results is of null importance. Also, the number of samples tested makes a lot of difference. The dispassion of testing authority is also as crucial as above mentioned factors. Suppose a person is conducting test. He finds that out of 50 samples only 5 have problem. He might neglect checking other samples. In this case a bad samples in further lots will also be given a pass. Hence, further investigation is necessary for reaching a solid conclusion.
The arguments also conclude that only the chemicals were tested. It might be possible that factors causing illness would be other than chemicals. It is likely that pet getting exposed to covering or harmful material on covering would be causing the illness. As we know pet food is usually contained in plastic material. A plastic getting mixed with with dog food might be the reason for illness. Here the further investigation would give the proper notion.
Nonetheless it is also possible that the pets consuming the food might be exposed to some other kind of illness, than one which is induced by eating food. In this food might not be the reason. Some other factors such as environmental factors or air borne diseases could cause vomiting or lethargy. The number of pets reported must be from same area where air borne disease was prevailing. Suppose a complaint was filled by only few owners who lived in certain area then conducting a re-test of dog food would be futile. In this case a proper report of complaints must be studied and analyzed before blaming the dog food company.
Hence, it can be concluded that the argument contains lots of reasoning fallacies. They should be further investigated and then only the conclusion should be drawn. Until then it is wrong to assume that pet food is safe.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 62, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...ven assumptions in the stated argument. As a result it cannot be firmly concluded ...
^^
Line 1, column 108, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...esult it cannot be firmly concluded that pet food is free of contamination. The f...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... are naturally susceptible to illness. Moreover the testing methods are also doubtable....
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 259, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
... covering would be causing the illness. As we know pet food is usually contained i...
^^
Line 4, column 345, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: with
...astic material. A plastic getting mixed with with dog food might be the reason for illnes...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Nonetheless,
...tigation would give the proper notion. Nonetheless it is also possible that the pets consu...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 114, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
... exposed to some other kind of illness, than one which is induced by eating food. In...
^^^^
Line 6, column 166, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Until” 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.
...en only the conclusion should be drawn. Until then it is wrong to assume that pet foo...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'then', 'kind of', 'such as', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.225680933852 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.215953307393 0.15541462614 139% => OK
Adjectives: 0.101167315175 0.0836205057962 121% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0525291828794 0.0520304965353 101% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0214007782101 0.0272364105082 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.107003891051 0.125424944231 85% => OK
Participles: 0.0894941634241 0.0416121511921 215% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.70534312268 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0136186770428 0.026700313972 51% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0953307392996 0.113004496875 84% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0466926070039 0.0255425247493 183% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.011673151751 0.0127820249294 91% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2790.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 474.0 446.07635468 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.88607594937 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.348101265823 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.2805907173 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.170886075949 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116033755274 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70534312268 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 207.018472906 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483122362869 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 55.2037129803 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 34.0 20.039408867 170% => OK
Sentence length: 13.9411764706 23.2022227129 60% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.2599075959 57.7814097925 58% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.0588235294 141.986410481 58% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.9411764706 23.2022227129 60% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.352941176471 0.724660767414 49% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 42.0002482005 51.9672348444 81% => OK
Elegance: 1.45637583893 1.8405768891 79% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.4895615953 0.441005458295 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.112051528629 0.135418324435 83% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0885018003709 0.0829849096947 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.431022491817 0.58762219726 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117250345876 0.147661913831 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.146133000808 0.193483328276 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0970611054689 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.29813988936 0.42659136922 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0563358515212 0.0774707102158 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30542454034 0.312017818177 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0969467545598 0.0698173142475 139% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 6.87684729064 276% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 15.0 5.36822660099 279% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 25.0 14.657635468 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.