Modern food contains a variety of chemicals used for decorative, preservative and other purposes. In order to prevent the humans, and pets from the obvious hazards of these synthesized products, food surveillance organizations demand strict adherence to norms by the manufacturers. In the preceding response, the author claims that the food company is not responsible for the ill reaction of pets who had consumed their pet food because the recalled food samples seemed to contain the chemicals that are approved. Though the argument may have merit, the writer presents an poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumptions, and relying solely on the evidences provided, his claim seems invalid.
The primary concern with the contention is the unsubstantiated evidence. He does not cite the results of the study that is mentioned in this argument. Not only that but also the lack of quantification in the claim is bothering. What kind of pets had an ill response to the pet food: if a majority of suffering pets were German Shepherds, maybe the product is not well designed for their consumption, or this pet food company caters poorly with cats if a lot of cats were afflicted .Were the complaints received from a particular segment of the population, or was any specific batch of the food products responsible for such a dreadful mess? The argument lacks any legitimate evidence.
The author further weakens his conclusion by making vague premises and numerous assumptions. Claiming that since the food only contained the approved chemicals, is safe for consumption, is a grave sin. Without assessing the dosage present with the recommended usage of these chemicals, no conclusion can be made. It is quite plausible to for a product to only possess approved chemicals, but in lethal amounts, causing severe medical problems to the consumer. A proper investigation in the exact spectrum of chemical composition has to be undertaken. Combining properties of these constituents and their reactive tendencies can result in the formation of new entities, having an altogether distinct flavor. These novel compounds can be lethal, and possibly be the cause of such mass suffering of the pets.
Granted that the offered explanation of the large scale pet illness is flimsy, it is not to say that the entire argument is without merit. The author can significantly bolster his stance by providing digging further into the research of the food samples. Detailed inquiries regarding the various chemical properties of the samples, their response to these animals has to be duly noted. With a sound research and investigation and a detailed analysis of the same, the claim can present a convincing line of reasoning.
All subjects considered, the writer presents an illogical argument lacking a robust basis. In order to make an impact, he must rephrase his claim, fix the flaws in the logic and provide evidentiary support. Without these overha
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the fourth paragraph is like a conclusion paragraph. need one more argument paragraph instead.
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2430 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.105 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.848 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.505 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.217 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.259 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 571, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ent may have merit, the writer presents an poorly reasoned argument, based on ques...
^^
Line 3, column 481, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ith cats if a lot of cats were afflicted .Were the complaints received from a part...
^^
Line 3, column 483, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Were
...h cats if a lot of cats were afflicted .Were the complaints received from a particul...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, regarding, so, well, as to, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2494.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 476.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23949579832 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94409519044 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531512605042 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 772.2 705.55239521 109% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.7564335709 57.8364921388 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.434782609 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6956521739 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.39130434783 5.70786347227 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.283234305378 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601700887679 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120873511955 0.0701772020484 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153027287688 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.145743527874 0.0628817314937 232% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.32208582834 117% => OK
difficult_words: 154.0 98.500998004 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.