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 about the role of recalled food in the deteriorating health of pet animals doesn't have enough evidences to back it up and needs further investigation to establish a conclusion.
It is not clearly stated in the argument about the number of pet illness complaints which came. If these complaints were only few, then the company's decision to recall 4 million pounds of pet food would completely be a waste. Even if the complaints were in good numbers, there is lack of evidence in the argument about other factors which could result in vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. There could have been a pet wide disease which resulted into such signs of illness rather than resulting from consumption of the pet food. So, it is required to analyze the number of complaints and conduct an investigation for the basis of these complaints. Only after all the alternate causes for these signs are traversed could we conclude that the pet food was responsible for the deteriorating health of the pets and that the food company's decision was right in recalling the pet food.
Also, it is told that samples from the recalled food was tested and determined that all chemicals used were approved for use in pet food. Now, this statement is itself very vague to come at a conclusion that recalled food wasn't responsible for the bad health of pets. We should be told which kind of a lab it was where the food got tested, whether it was an authentic lab or just in association with the company so that it could prove the company innocent. Moreover, we are oblivious of the standards which the lab used to render the chemicals good for use in pet food. if the standard used was quite old and in later years pets developed allergy to any approved chemicals as of then, then the results and conclusion thereafter would go for a toss.
Since the argument houses several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case about whether the pet food was responsible for the illness symptoms in pets or not.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 354 350
No. of Characters: 1636 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.338 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.621 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.619 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.552 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.417 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.612 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 89, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...the deteriorating health of pet animals doesnt have enough evidences to back it up and...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...come at a conclusion that recalled food wasnt responsible for the bad health of pets....
^^^^^
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'kind of'.
Suggestion: kind of
...health of pets. We should be told which kind of a lab it was where the food got tested, w...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...the chemicals good for use in pet food. if the standard used was quite old and in ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, moreover, so, then, after all, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1669.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 352.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74147727273 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33147354134 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63761083107 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471590909091 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.4055022374 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.384615385 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0769230769 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.69230769231 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.481031099628 0.218282227539 220% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.190916985694 0.0743258471296 257% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119936853073 0.0701772020484 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.291413814228 0.128457276422 227% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10972539773 0.0628817314937 174% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.