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 made by the pet food company has a logical basis, but suffers from several loopholes, and the company jumps to a conclusion without considering all the possibilities.
After recalling the food, the company is mentioned to have tested 'samples' from the food. There's no mention of the size of the sample tested. If only a few cans were tested, it's entirely possible, if not likely, that this sample size was too small, and that other cans could have caused the illnesses. If the food tested was too little, their conclusion that the food was not responsible for the symptoms because they tested it fails unequivocally.
Also, testing the food for its individual chemicals isn't a fool-proof method in any sense. Those chemicals, even if they're approved for pet-food use, mixed in certain combinations and proportions with each other, could turn out to be harmful. The company states that it determined all the chemicals found, and these tests were likely performed in a lab of theirs, with some specific environmental conditions. Taken to higher or lower temperature and pressure, those same chemicals can react in different ways to produce more chemicals, which would slip through this test. So, if the company shipped the food to different places with different environmental conditions, which it probably did with 4 million pounds on the market, it can't get away with testing the food for individual chemicals under their laboratory conditions, and will be held responsible for the symptoms as a result.
In addition, there could be a problem with certain methods of storing or serving the food, which aren't mentioned to have been tested, which are causing the food to get poisoned. The company needs to test the food under non-ideal storage and serving conditions, before it can claim to be free of the responsibility of invoking the symptoms in pets.
Overall, before the pet food company can ensure that the above conditions have been met, they can't reasonably assure anyone that the recalled food was not responsible for the pathological symptoms.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
read a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1688 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.921 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.672 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.385 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.58 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.401 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.644 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 90, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: There's
...d to have tested samples from the food. Theres no mention of the size of the sample te...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 53, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...g the food for its individual chemicals isnt a fool-proof method in any sense. Those...
^^^^
Line 5, column 117, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
... in any sense. Those chemicals, even if theyre approved for pet-food use, mixed in cer...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 732, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...with 4 million pounds on the market, it cant get away with testing the food for indi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 732, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'cants'?
Suggestion: cants
...with 4 million pounds on the market, it cant get away with testing the food for indi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 98, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...s of storing or serving the food, which arent mentioned to have been tested, which ar...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 95, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...he above conditions have been met, they cant reasonably assure anyone that the recal...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, as to, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1738.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 340.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11176470588 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75511477791 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.532352941176 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 529.2 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.5724174149 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.692307692 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1538461538 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.84615384615 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379468955006 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153668246185 0.0743258471296 207% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121140573837 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2375844022 0.128457276422 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462732078001 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.