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.
A pet food company had to recently call back 4 million pounds of pet food in response to the complaints from pet owners that after eating the company's pet food, their pets experienced vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. The pet food company tested the samples and found no discrepancies with the chemicals used in the pet food. As a result, the arguer is of the opinion that the company should not invest and further resources into the investigation. The arguer's conclusion might seem compelling after reading through the evidences provided by him, although, a closer look might unearth a few alternate possibilities that might undermine the arguer's position.
Firstly, the arguer points towards the testing of pet food samples once the were recalled. The arguer also states that the results of the tests prove no discrepancies in the chemicals used to manufacture the pet food. The questions that might arise here is, did the company conduct impartially, the tests on the pet food, and can the results be believed? Such questions arise since the company can be guilty of hiding their results or providing false results to the people in order to save the reputation of the company. If such a situation is true, the company should invest resources into further investigation of the food since it is their pet food which is causing problems for the pets.
Secondly, even if we believe that the testing conducted on the pet food was legitimate, were the samples tested in line with the average amount of food consumed by a pet? What if the amount of sample, that was tested, is very less compared to the average amount of food that the pet eats in one sitting? This could mean that, for the amount of sample, which was tested, the chemicals are within the limits but when it is compared to the average amount of food consumed by the pets in one go, it is causing problems for the pets. If such a situation holds true, there will be doubts on the methods, undertaken by the company to test the pet food. As a result, it would be necessary to conduct further investigation, on the recalled food.
Lastly, the arguer states that the chemicals used for the creation of pet food were inline with the chemicals approved for pet food creation. What if the quantity of chemicals to be used were approved only recently, and before that, the company used to add chemicals as it pleased them? This could mean that the pet food has a higher concentration of chemicals, than it is approved for pet food manufacturing. If there is any substance to such a possibility, it would be apt for the company to recall all the previously dispatched packets of pet food and do thorough research on each one of them.
In sum, the evidences provided by the arguer in order to defend the pet food are dubious and erroneous. The evidences hint towards a myriad possibilities that casts a doubt on the pet food's safety. Hence, it cannot be categorically stated if the pet food, manufactured by the company, is safe for consumption.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2433 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.625 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.592 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.581 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.413 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.213 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 467, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...r resources into the investigation. The arguers conclusion might seem compelling after ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 141, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'possibility'?
Suggestion: possibility
...us. The evidences hint towards a myriad possibilities that casts a doubt on the pet foods saf...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2497.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 526.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74714828897 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66821623946 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403041825095 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 767.7 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.5447195059 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.904761905 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0476190476 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04761904762 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.597698790585 0.218282227539 274% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.228309235136 0.0743258471296 307% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150103446181 0.0701772020484 214% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.38837719025 0.128457276422 302% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0862127232007 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 10.57 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.