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.
The argument presented here is that since the chemicals used in the food were approved, the illness caused to animals was not because of the pet comapny's food and hence, they should not devote further resources to the investigation. This conclusion based on the given premises is completely flawed and sample test done on the recalled food seems to be narrow scoped which ignores many other factors that may have caused the mentioned illness. Furthermore, it portrays the lack of market insensitivity of the company.
Firstly, the company has just recalled their one batch of product which caused the epidemic. No where did they point out that such results were not found in the previous batches. This fact directly shows that they ignored the extraneous factors to the pet food. It may would have happened that the pets took contaminated water with pet food which was only consumed with current batch of products. And as the company won't intigate this further, they will never be able to educate the owners of the pets that it was never their fault.
Secondly, since the chemicals used in the food were approved, it doesn't mean that that the mixture of such a thing will be consumable. We know that chemicals in different proportions can cause different reactions and a layman is never aware of it. Also, the company totally ignores the user-end ramifications of such a consequence. Since they won't do further investigations. Their main focus will be on the internal factors rather than the external factors responsible for their loss.
Lastly, the company never checked with the user that, did the right animal consume this food. Was the pet food being sold was meant for them? It may have happened that the food was consumed by animals who were allergic to the chemicals used in the food item. This means it was solely user negligience that caused such a situation. The comapny seems to be alien to such reasons.
Now to improve this, the company can take the following steps. They should create awareness camps for the owners of the pets and educate them about the consumption of their product. They should make it a point that the user reads the instructions properly before buying their product for the right animal. They should hold a further investigation with an animal NGO to check all the factors for the illness and make sure that all categories of factors are taken into account. That should give them a clearer picture and make the public aware of the real reason of illness of the animals was not the company's product.
In the end though such an investigation will help the company's fortune, in current scenario it is seldom going to happen. The company should shun away this irresponsible and ignorant attitude. The conclusion is not only weak, it is based on an incomplete data.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 94, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: Now
...h of product which caused the epidemic. No where did they point out that such resu...
^^
Line 5, column 66, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...cals used in the food were approved, it doesnt mean that that the mixture of such a th...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 78, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
... the food were approved, it doesnt mean that that the mixture of such a thing will be con...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 333, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” 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.
...nd ramifications of such a consequence. Since they wont do further investigations. Th...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 382, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
...y wont do further investigations. Their main focus will be on the internal factors rather ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 307, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ing their product for the right animal. They should hold a further investigation wit...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2332.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86847599165 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51036180596 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457202505219 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 711.9 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 4.96107784431 323% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.982389863 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.6923076923 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4230769231 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.03846153846 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25885236869 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724493278399 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0765087616695 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147953267675 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0951251843554 0.0628817314937 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.