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 assertion is based on incompetent facts and unwarranted assumptions. It is based on a single test sample activity which was done and does not take into account the other various possibilities which could have led to the infectious samples. There isn't enough evidence that is cited by the argument in order to corroborate the conclusion that it is claiming.
The samples that were tested after the food was recalled were tested only for the chemicals in the food. There could be other factors such as the organic raw materials that are used in the food which caused the signs of illness in the pets. There could have been a decay of the primary material used in the manufacturing of the food. However, there is no justification present in the assertion of having checked for these raw materials.
There could be factors such as the packaging of the food. Maybe the plastic that was used in the food was harmful and not suitable for packaging purposes or if any metal was used for the packaging reacted with the food which led to spoiling it. There could also be an issue of the gas which is used to cover the tins for the longevity of the food item, as a preservative. There have been cases where in the gases used in the packing of products have been harmful after consumption. No such evidence is provided in the argument which tests for these possibilities.
Moreover, the argument does not take into account the factory conditions in which the food has been manufactured. There is no such evidence present in the assertion which accounts for the fact that the hygiene conditions in the factory were also approved by the government. Clean and hygienic production conditions especially when food is being manufactured is very important and the assertion does not account for any investigation of the conditions of the factory of the pet food manufacturing.
Since a large number of pet food was recalled, it is pretty evident that there must have a large number of pets which were experiencing the signs of illness. To just investigate for chemicals and not do a thorough investigation of the food does not fit the charts here. Therefore, the conclusion that the factory should not devote further resources for investigation is incorrect and the pet food manufacturing company has not taken into account all the possibilities which could have led to the infectious food and the assertion is based on a weak assumption which further requires more probation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 251, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ve led to the infectious samples. There isnt enough evidence that is cited by the ar...
^^^^
Line 9, column 7, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...of the pet food manufacturing. Since a large number of pet food was recalled, it is pretty evi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 90, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... is pretty evident that there must have a large number of pets which were experiencing the signs ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'therefore', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.22972972973 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.193693693694 0.15541462614 125% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0810810810811 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0427927927928 0.0520304965353 82% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00900900900901 0.0272364105082 33% => OK
Prepositions: 0.130630630631 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0720720720721 0.0416121511921 173% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.80862965508 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0135135135135 0.026700313972 51% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.148648648649 0.113004496875 132% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.018018018018 0.0255425247493 71% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0382882882883 0.0127820249294 300% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2469.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 421.0 446.07635468 94% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86460807601 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.275534441805 0.378187486979 73% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.244655581948 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.178147268409 0.208842608468 85% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.125890736342 0.135150697306 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80862965508 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 207.018472906 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.399049881235 0.469332199767 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 42.696073274 52.1807786196 82% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 23.3888888889 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.7991569722 57.7814097925 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.166666667 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3888888889 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.444444444444 0.724660767414 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 47.8544470837 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.76146788991 1.8405768891 96% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.512507809741 0.441005458295 116% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.175814312476 0.135418324435 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0677732399046 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.666133150985 0.58762219726 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.112525329338 0.147661913831 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.256261815422 0.193483328276 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104030764664 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.572029991139 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.130682572945 0.0774707102158 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.380600267834 0.312017818177 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0968625977011 0.0698173142475 139% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.