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 statement is made based on several unwarranted assumptions which should be further examined before any recommendation is provided, and I will discuss in details as following.
First, it is unclear how the samples have been selected for testing, so it is unknown whether those samples can really represent the whole 4 million pounds of the food. If those samples are outliers of those problematic food, then it is premature to claim the food is not responsible for the symptoms. Therefore, it requires further explanation of the selection of the samples and the elaboration on the representation of the samples to confirm the validity of the testing results. Otherwise, any conclusion made based on those samples are being questioned.
Second, even though the samples do represent the recalled food, it is problematic to claim that no issues caused because of the chemicals are all approved categories. The reason behind is that the chemical may be allowed to use, but the condition of the chemical may lead to problems. For example, it is possible chemicals become deleterious due to hot weather or high humidity, so the problem doesn't only lie in the categories of the chemical, but also relate to the quality change according to the way that preserves the chemicals. The point that I would like to emphasize is that even though all chemicals are legal to use, it requires further examination of chemicals to testify any potential harm that may be created.
Third, based on the two points mentioned above, it is questionable to state that the food is not responsible for the dogs' illness. Thus, more investigation is definitely needed to clarify the root cause of the problem. Meanwhile, it is not only the food that should be examined, the dogs with ill symptoms are also needed to be investigated. Because there may be some chemicals which are allergic to certain types of dogs. If this assumption is true, then even all the chemicals are legal to use, some chemicals are still pernicious to dogs. Therefore, investigation towards dogs is also vital to find out the causation.
In conclusion, the statement is being challenged due to the lack of the representation of the samples, and no other than the contain of the chemicals is being researched, so it is not convincing to clear the responsibility of the food. Furthermore, the relation between the food and the dog types is also missing from the research, which is another aspect that may cause the illness of the dogs. Therefore, more information relating to the dimensions above should be revealed before a reasonable recommendation is declared.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 436 350
No. of Characters: 2125 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.57 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.874 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.875 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... on those samples are being questioned. Second, even though the samples do repre...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 395, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...eather or high humidity, so the problem doesnt only lie in the categories of the chemi...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 118, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'dogs'' or 'dog's'?
Suggestion: dogs'; dog's
...hat the food is not responsible for the dogs illness. Thus, more investigation is de...
^^^^
Line 7, column 343, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...oms are also needed to be investigated. Because there may be some chemicals which are a...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 122, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ation of the samples, and no other than the contain of the chemicals is being researched, s...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 196, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'clearing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: clearing
...ing researched, so it is not convincing to clear the responsibility of the food. Further...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, really, second, so, still, then, therefore, third, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2186.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02528735632 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96296780728 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466666666667 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 691.2 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.2598614555 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.444444444 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.22222222222 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.162889199396 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563273990458 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674631094283 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0896399250475 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0624409559428 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.