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 argument claims that a pet food company has tested the samples of recalled pet food to verify if the pet food is the reason for the illness of pets that have consumed the pet food. But, test results turned out to be positive and chemicals in the samples are approved to be used in pet food. Stated in this way argument fails to mention several key factors, which could be used to evaluate the argument. the conclusion that company should not spend its resources for further investigation is superficial and it needs to consider several factors while coming to such a conclusion. Therefore, argument is weak, flawed and is not persuasive.
First argument readily assumes that recalled food is from the same region where the company is getting lot of complaints. There is no explicit evidence to support this fact. To illustrate, it could be possible that company is multinational, it is receiving complaints from India. But, food collected is from Canada. One cannot deny the fact that food in India might have got contaminated while the food in Canada is completely edible. In such cases testing the Canadian samples will yield positive results. But entire process does not make sense. Therefore, if argument explicitly stated that it has tested the food from region from where it is getting complaints then it would have been more convincing.
Second, there is no mention regarding the target pets for which the food is prepared. For example, if the food is designed mainly for dogs and it has some chemicals that could be allergic if used for some other pets like cats. Also, the amount of food that owner is feeding his pet should also be considered. Argument would have been more convincing if it has answers to these questions.
Third, the argument has not given any information regarding the sample space that is been used for testing. Even though, it has recalled four million pounds, it might be using 4 milligrams for testing which may not produce correct results. Also there is no evidence that if food has not exceeded the expiry date. Without answering these questions company falsely concludes that test conducted by them is accurate and it should not spend any further resources to investigation. Clearly, conclusion is fallacious and without answering above questions one is left with wishful thinking that test conducted by company is accurate.
In summary, argument is flawed. Because, it fails to mention several key factors which are crucial for evaluating the soundness of the argument. While assessing the merits of a situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without answering above mentioned questions, argument is weak and is open to debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not exactly right on the point. Here goes 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: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2209 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.876 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.539 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.12 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.114 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.72 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.285 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...could be used to evaluate the argument. the conclusion that company should not spen...
^^^
Line 3, column 67, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...umes that recalled food is from the same region where the company is getting lot ...
^^
Line 7, column 241, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... which may not produce correct results. Also there is no evidence that if food has n...
^^^^
Line 9, column 146, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” 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.
...aluating the soundness of the argument. While assessing the merits of a situation it ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, third, while, for example, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2269.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 453.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00883002208 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63600562394 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454746136865 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 701.1 705.55239521 99% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.9838127443 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.2692307692 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4230769231 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376630193339 0.218282227539 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0973945228587 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133814862913 0.0701772020484 191% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208530063668 0.128457276422 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.142062863999 0.0628817314937 226% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.