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.
In the given argument, relying on the tests carried out on the recalled food, the company of pet food avers that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms presented in the complaint. The company arrives at the presented assertion based only on the chemical test of the recalled food. Even though the assertion might be true, it hinges on unfounded assumptions, if not substantiated will undermine the persuasiveness of the argument. Therefore, the assumptions of the argument have to be evaluated.
Firstly, the company determined only the chemicals in the food considering that chemical to be the only reason possible to bring such symptoms of vomiting, lethargy, and illness experienced by the pets. It does not take into account any other parameters of the food that could cause such ailment. For instance, the food might be processed long time ago and might be the cause for such response by the pets. They might have to investigate their manufacture date and the food lasting time period. Even if they claim the food to last up to 12 months, the illness experienced by the pets might be because of 10 months old food. Such investigation could in fact help the company to correct their over estimation. In such scenario, where other parameters of the food might lead to sickness in pet, it will not be justified for the company to claim that they are not responsible only by carrying out chemical tests.
Secondly, the company has only investigated the type of chemicals in the food, no information have been given regarding the permissible amount of the chemicals. For example, 1 gram of the included chemicals might be approved for use, but there might be presence of 2 grams of chemicals per packet. As it has no information that the approved chemical was in temperance, it can not be asserted that the chemical had no role in the sickness of the pets. Therefore, the assumption that any quantity of approved chemical is permissible is unwarranted.
Lastly, the company assumes that their food will forever have no detrimental effects on the pets consuming. It is adamant in its assertion that it is not possible for the food to harm the health of the pets -- even in the future. But due to changes in the routine of the pets or the environment, the pet food might need some modifications and for that investigation must be carried out. With changing circumstances in the future,if the company continues to prove the same quality without further testing, there might be adverse repercussions in pet's health. Therefore, the assumption that their food will eternally cause to harm to the pets is not valid or supported with any evidences.
To sum up, as the argument lies on questionable assumptions, the claim of the company of pet food is contentious. It is desideratum for the company to also carry out multifaceted research and tests before claiming.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2333 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.781 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.792 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.182 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.972 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 20, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...le is unwarranted. Lastly, the company assumes that their food will forever hav...
^^
Line 4, column 430, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , if
...ith changing circumstances in the future,if the company continues to prove the same...
^^^
Line 4, column 481, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pany continues to prove the same quality without further testing, there might be ...
^^
Line 4, column 624, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'harming'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: harming
...on that their food will eternally cause to harm to the pets is not valid or supported w...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, for instance, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2389.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 487.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90554414784 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88717727715 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.414784394251 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4444699889 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.590909091 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1363636364 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.81818181818 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.391684258352 0.218282227539 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142917230685 0.0743258471296 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125386194947 0.0701772020484 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.254215650004 0.128457276422 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115050112847 0.0628817314937 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.