There are complaints received with regards to the quality of the pet food that a company produces. There is a claim that the food that company produces is not responsible for this problem and rather makes a decision that no further investigation will be carried out. The author bases his reasoning on the ground that the chemical found in the food are the approved chemical for use in pet food. There is a gigantic assumption the author is making. This remedy is unlikely to be successful as there are various flaws and incomplete evidence in the author argument.
Firstly, the food that was recalled is in prodigious amount of 4 million. This was the result of the complaints that the company received, itself showing that there might be some malfunctioning happened while the production of food. Various sign of illness like vomiting, lethargy were reported by the consumer that purchased these product. Further the company tested the recalled food and comes to a conclusion that the chemicals involved in production of these food are suitable for the pet food. How the company can prove that these chemicals are suitable? There are no mentions of standard test approved by food authority of the country to back up this decision. Also, there might be the case that instrument used while testing the sample for recalled food where not adequate. The sample quantity would not be suffice in determining the accurate result. All these flaws are present in the argument that author seems to ignore and right away come to the conclusion.
In addition to this, the author readily assumes that the chemical that were approved for the use of pet food doesn't undergo any changes during there life span. What if there were change in the behavior of the chemicals that have led to several signs of illness that the consumer's pet is facing. The author fails to keep an account of this factor. Lastly, the author comes to conclusion that they have invested sufficient amount of resources to their investigation and don't require further investigation. There might be the case that the resources used would not be suffice to dealt with these problems for which author has provided no answer.
Though there are several issues with the author argument at present, with research and clarification, the argument can be improved significantly. For example, the author should have provided evidence for the chemical use of pet food. Should have mention the facts of using food in particular duration as food expires after a certain time period etc.
In a sum, as we can see from the above mentioned reasons and examples, the author's argument is acute to several reasoning and hence open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 327, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this product' or 'these products'?
Suggestion: this product; these products
...reported by the consumer that purchased these product. Further the company tested the recalle...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 458, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this food' or 'these foods'?
Suggestion: this food; these foods
...the chemicals involved in production of these food are suitable for the pet food. How the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 110, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...t were approved for the use of pet food doesnt undergo any changes during there life s...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 469, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...of resources to their investigation and dont require further investigation. There mi...
^^^^
Line 9, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ove mentioned reasons and examples, the authors argument is acute to several reasoning ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, so, while, for example, in addition, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2238.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 452.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95132743363 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57403874563 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451327433628 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 702.9 705.55239521 100% => 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
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.208963028 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.3043478261 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.652173913 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.95652173913 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.333901523529 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110405761274 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11530952252 0.0701772020484 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188445301067 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121725542162 0.0628817314937 194% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.