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 statement presented by above is flawed in many different aspects and lacks the support for the claims. The claims by the company are based on simple analysis about the sample and the ingredients of the pet food which are not sufficient enough to substantiate their assertion.
Firstly, the recalled food is humongous in quantity and thus the selection of "few" sample will not suffice the current acquisition. The company claims to have tested few samples from the recalled food with present chemicals in the food. The issue about sampling error is not addressed. There is a high probability of error in some batch of the food production and those might be kept out of the sample for testing. The assertions are based on insufficient data about how the sampling was done, what number of samples were tested and what methods were advocated for the said tests.
Secondly, the most dubious fact present in their statement is the test itself. The company claims to have chemical ingredients which are approved for pet food but does not mentions the quantity and ratios of the chemicals. The probability of augmented amount of some chemical and decreased amount of other many be the reason for the signs of illness in pets. As the chemicals are approved for pet food, the presence of it in the food is most obvious. They would rather need to test the proportions of each to jump to conclusion. Another schism in this claim is the presence of chemicals as singular but they fail to address the negative outcomes of mixing different chemical in one product itself. For example, milk and lemon juice, both individually are very salubrious items for humans, but if combined, not only the advantages of each are lost but it involves consequences if consumed. Similarly, the case of inclusion of such chemicals which may react with each other and produce a constituent which is deleterious for the species also demands punctilious investigation.
Hence, it can be inferred that the argument is based on doubtful claims which needs further explanations to decide on the quality of the pet food. The sole reason of inclusion of approved chemicals is not sufficient enough to circumvent the need for further investigation. The company should analyze their food fastidiously to prevent themselves for any future such incidents. Answer to the few questions above and addressing to other such intricacies would determine the lucidity of the picture.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 1997 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.679 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.158 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.368 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.029 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 47, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...atement presented by above is flawed in many different aspects and lacks the support for the c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 173, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'mention'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: mention
... are approved for pet food but does not mentions the quantity and ratios of the chemical...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 173, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'mention'
Suggestion: mention
... are approved for pet food but does not mentions the quantity and ratios of the chemical...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2056.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06403940887 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7950705925 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475369458128 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 630.9 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.9989065304 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.210526316 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3684210526 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.89473684211 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27707241475 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0958711586215 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109158403874 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180929518919 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333871287298 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.