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 author contends that the pet food that was accused of causing vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness to pets was vindicated by the research. Given that the research proved that the pet food did not contain any chemicals that are not approved for use in pet food, the company that sells the specific pet food is not responsible for the symptoms and will not investigate the issue further. While at first glance the arguments seems to have some merit, further inspection reveals some assumptions that need attention.
The first assumption that the author makes is that the company is not responsible since the tests proved the approved use of chemicals. It strikes me that the company might still be responsible if the food was kept in conditions, such as extreme heat, that alter the chemicals' form and their implications to the animals' organism. I would be more convinced if the author included data about the conditions in which the food was kept and the extend to which these chemicals react when the normal conditions are not guaranteed.
The author also assumes that the chemicals that are approved for use in pet food do not precipitate unwanted symptoms. Common sense informs me that chemicals, even if approved, might react with other chemicals contained in food that a pet consumes. Therefore, the author could cite information about tests that examine the reactions of chemicals contained in the pet food of the company with other chemicals contained in various pet food to eliminate any concerns about the interaction of chemicals.
Lastly, although the author's argument is based on the results from a test, details of the test are not included. A case in point would be the statistics of the test and the number of the sample. It could be possible for a chemical that is not approved for pet food to be detected in a very small amount that the researchers evaluated as insignificant. However, this piece of information should have been carefully examined since it could by itself disqualify the whole argument.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unsubstantiated. The author assumes that the tests are reliable even thought no data are included regarding the statistics of the tests and the chemicals' behavior in various conditions and in combination with other pet food chemicals.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 385 350
No. of Characters: 1894 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.43 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.661 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.435 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.626 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 313, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...cals form and their implications to the animals organism. I would be more convinced if ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 437, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nditions in which the food was kept and the extend to which these chemicals react when the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n of chemicals. Lastly, although the authors argument is based on the results from a...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e whole argument. In conclusion, the authors argument is unsubstantiated. The author...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 184, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...ing the statistics of the tests and the chemicals behavior in various conditions and in c...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, regarding, so, still, therefore, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1937.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 385.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03116883117 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75110673999 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441558441558 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 593.1 705.55239521 84% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.0742529076 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.133333333 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.367997853976 0.218282227539 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134597869805 0.0743258471296 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117264489121 0.0701772020484 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225038496344 0.128457276422 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107798483121 0.0628817314937 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.