The argument in question is too weak to be convincing. While the author claims that the company should stop investing in further research because the samples contained all the approved chemicals, there are basic flaws in his argument. There are few questions, which arise at this point, that can determine if the company should stop research at all.
Firstly, the author claims that the chemicals in the samples are approved for use in pet food. However, it is not mentioned whether the company actually tested the food on various pet animals before the approval of the food. Also, it is necessary to know the particular breed the research took into account during pre-approval stage.
Secondly, the argument calls the approving department in question. The reliability and the authenticity of the approving department is not mentioned anywhere. The concerned department might be involved in debauchery. In this scenario, the further research of the recalled food must continue and in fact must be tested in various laboratories in order to reach a conclusive report.
Thirdly, the argument does not mention of any allergic substance, which the recalled pet food might contain. Generally, if a food contains potential allergens, it is advised to the pet owners to check the ingredients before feeding it to their pets. In case, it contains allergens and it is not mentioned on the pet food, many pets who are specifically allergic to such substances, might fall ill.
Finally, the author does not mention any specified amount, in which it could be fed to pets. The company probably failed to mention the appropriate quantity and as a result the pet owners overfed their pets. In this case, the company should further their research to find out if there is any toxic effect of their product if it is consumed in excess.
The argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. The argument could have been strengthened to a greater extent if the author included the answers to these questions. To be able to judge a situation, one needs to be aware of all the evidences pertaining to that situation. In this case, the argument lacks basic reasoning and thus remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not exactly right on the point. Let's check out a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1790 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.904 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.718 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.26 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.584 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 124, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'food'.
Suggestion: food
...d pet food might contain. Generally, if a food contains potential allergens, it is adv...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, while, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06849315068 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8026071555 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476712328767 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.0747340415 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 92.5 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.25 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.55 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.260706635738 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811796869138 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107550905211 0.0701772020484 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137112157223 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121327764892 0.0628817314937 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => 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: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.