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.
This argument is based on many assumptions that lead it to possible flaws. On the broader side, the company assumes the conditions of company environment and the environment where pets eat that food to be same and of the same quality that company dispatches towards the consumers.
The argument is based on assumption that the approval of chemical found in food is valid. There might be the case that those chemicals are just approved to be used for pets that are completely different from the pets that the company is manufacturing products for. Or even it might be the case that the approval of those chemical is somewhere flawed. Therefore, it is a great need for company to verify the validity of approval before finalizing the investigation.
Considering the fact that the chemical approval is valid but in what quantity those chemicals should be used. If we look on the human side, his/her body mass index plays an important role when suggesting them food better for their health. Consequently, the company might be using the chemicals in quantity that is not recommended for intake of the pets and thus resulting in illness.
The environment where certain foods are consumed plays an important role for consumption of those foods. This can be justified by that fact that food consumed in western countries is much different from that of eastern countries because of the fact that temperature in western countries is normally colder than that of eastern countries. Similarly, if we consider the pet food manufactured by the company, it might be possible that the environment where food is prepared and the environment where it is consumed are much different. When food is recalled by the company, it again tests that food again in environment where it was prepared, not in the areas where it is consumed and thus leading to results with possible flaws. Therefore, ideal investigation should be done in proper conditions from where the complaints are received.
Considering the situation that all of the in-house investigation proves to be valid and justifies the company not responsible for illness of pets. Another side that remains unanswered is the food delivery mechanism by the company. It might be possible that the mechanism is too slow that the food reaches to the consumers after its expiry or not of the quality that is prepared in company.
Therefore, it can be concluded that company should complete its investigation once it addresses both the in-house and out-house circumstances before justifying itself to be not responsible for illness of pets.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2109 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.951 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.793 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.124 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 229, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...ifferent from that of eastern countries because of the fact that temperature in western countries is nor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 32, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ceived. Considering the situation that all of the in-house investigation proves to be val...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, if, look, similarly, so, therefore, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 32.0 13.6137724551 235% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2148.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05411764706 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85187342056 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.404705882353 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 677.7 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3518802218 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.333333333 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6111111111 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.27777777778 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.276943419205 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937281373469 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0697906686588 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148156693347 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620721614072 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.