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.
It is stated in the passage that a pet food company had to recall some of their products because of the repercussions of their food on some of the pets.
Assuming that the pet company had recalled the pet food from the various locations that this complaint has been received, there is a possibility of some hidden element present in the food that is not detectable in the standard tests that this food company uses. If that is so, this pet food will have to undergo rigorous screening until they find out what the element is, that is causing such reactions in the pets and review the manufacturing process as well. If anything like this proven to be true, the company will face a huge loss, both financially and reputation wise and if the company just recalls the food from one location then probably the pet food is not the cause of such reactions of pets, it could be some demographic reason or water in that area etc.
If the recall is done by internal sources of the company, there is a chance that they are hiding some fraudulent substance in the ingredients from the consumers in order to protect the reputation of their firm, if this is proven to be true, the company may be seized by the government for committing fraud and even if the repercussions of this are not that worse, it would be difficult for the company to regain the trust of their consumers.
Another uncertainty about the given passage is that it is not explicitly mentioned is whether the guidelines followed by the pet food company to cross check the validity of chemicals used in their food, deprecated or new. If the guidelines followed were deprecated, there is a chance that one of the chemicals, which was thought to be innocuous before has been found out to be a harmful one after some research. Hence, the version of guidelines used has to be rechecked too. The company would face a huge trouble in this case too.
Hence, if the complaints received by the company are from one location then the company may not be at fault but if it is the other way around then it looks like this pet food company would face some repercussions.
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: 10 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1702 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.467 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.514 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 84 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 52 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 38.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.29 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.448 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.712 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 136, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...e of the repercussions of their food on some of the pets. Assuming that the pet company h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 145, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...as been received, there is a possibility of some hidden element present in the fo...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hic reason or water in that area etc. If the recall is done by internal sources ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, look, may, so, then, well, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1738.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.56167979003 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54765750424 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433070866142 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 548.1 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 107.283549531 57.8364921388 185% => OK
Chars per sentence: 173.8 119.503703932 145% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.1 23.324526521 163% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402465174166 0.218282227539 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.189228211696 0.0743258471296 255% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.145941862848 0.0701772020484 208% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250880868803 0.128457276422 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126468049452 0.0628817314937 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.1 14.3799401198 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.83 48.3550499002 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.76 12.5979740519 77% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => 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.