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.
In this argument, the author concludes that the recalled food is not the cause of pets' ill symptoms and the pet food company does not need to further investigate on this issue. To support this conclusion, the author points out that all the chemical elements found in the food are legal materials in their test. Although this argument seems plausible at the first glance, detailed scrutiny reveals that this argument is logically flawed since it unfairly rests on some assumptions without justification.
First of all, by claiming that the tested samples prove the recalled food have no problem, the author falsely assuming that the size of samples are statistically significant and the chosen samples are representative enough for the whole. However, no evidence is stated to back this assumption. To better test the food, the company should deal with the complaints cases specially, and do a more detailed test on these sample since it is possible that only the food of these complaint cases are polluted. If the company fail to do so, the test is not informative enough to support the author's conclusion. For other recalled food, the test should also pick enough samples randomly; otherwise, the validity of the test is open to doubt.
In addition, the author unfairly assumes that the legal materials of the food are used and put together in a correct way. Although all the exist elements are approved for use, it is entirely possible that some regulations also stated the amount limit that can be use for per unit of pet food. Or it is also possible that some materials cannot be used in the food at the same time. Unless all these and other possibilities are considered and ruled out, the author cannot state that the food is not responsible for the complaints.
To sum up, despite the it may ultimately be the case that the food are totally fine and have nothing to do with those pet being ill, we cannot conclude this from the argument as it stands now since there are many logical loopholes and unproved assumptions in this statement. To further bolster the argument, further information should be provide to show that the test is conducted carefully and scientifically.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 584, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s not informative enough to support the authors conclusion. For other recalled food, th...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 105, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a correct way" with adverb for "correct"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...s of the food are used and put together in a correct way. Although all the exist elements are ap...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 136, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...together in a correct way. Although all the exist elements are approved for use, it is en...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 20, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
... the complaints. To sum up, despite the it may ultimately be the case that the foo...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 339, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'provided'?
Suggestion: provided
...argument, further information should be provide to show that the test is conducted care...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, so, in addition, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1817.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89757412399 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64282655979 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479784366577 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 572.4 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4402973104 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.785714286 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07142857143 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.320972482818 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117003945563 0.0743258471296 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0928761917741 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189698716624 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585446613472 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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 -- 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: 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.