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
The given argument is completely obfuscated with respect to the information that it tries to depict. It does not use any numbers or percentages for complaints or customers. At last, it tries to make irrelevant judgement just on the basis of an approval and without finding out other causes and their effects.
The first line of the argument specifies that pet food company recalled its products based on complaints received. It fails to mention number of complaints versus number of customers and even doesn't provide any reports based on the same. It might be possible that same customer might have complained multiple times for multiple problems. Hence, a clear insight is required for the company to recall such a huge number of pet food and based on such insights, logical report is required. Also, it might be possible that food consumed by the pets might have older medical conditions that were gone missing or might have been allergic to specific food ingredients previously unknown by the owners.
Next line specifies that food company testified samples of the given product. This also fails to specify the reports of the sample in detail. It can be the case that, food samples tested by the company were the ones which are different from the products sold to the customers. Hence, a clear report on chemicals and ingredients must be made available to the customers seeking problem with the same.
The given statement that ingredients had no problem with them might be completely right, but we can't be completely dependent on just the reports. There might be multiple factors which might lead to adulteration of the given product. In some cases, it might be the retailers, to whom, the given company delivers its products to be sold locally. Hence, a further investigation for such a case might be useful to validate the given cause and find an efficient solution.
The last line specifies that as test samples did not indicate any issues with it, the company won't devote any further resources to investigation and might continue to sell the existing product. This might be a completely vague conclusion which might not only hamper the company's branding but might also cause a loss of revenue for it. A completely root cause investigation is required, and until a clear solution is not available, the company must continue its investigation. Hence, a root cause and a proper solution is required to validate the given argument as true.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 2000 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.854 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.608 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.232 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...nts versus number of customers and even doesnt provide any reports based on the same. ...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 97, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... them might be completely right, but we cant be completely dependent on just the rep...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, so, in some cases, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2053.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00731707317 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66225852689 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.456097560976 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.9339324316 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.65 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.15 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190345341206 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681412460396 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0944581349979 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107313800031 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0987852956005 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.