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.
According to the prompt a pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food as it had received complains that pets that consumed the food showed various signs of illness, but when the samples of recalled food were tested then it was found that all chemicals present in food were approved to be used for pet food. Thus prompt concludes that recalled food was not the reason behind symptoms that pets showed. However, before these conclusion can be validated answer to three unstated assumptions are required to be collected and analyzed.
Firstly, argument mentions that after pets showed symptoms 4 million pounds of food was returned but it doesn't clear whether copious pounds of pet food returned was exactly the same that was tested. It can be the case that out of 4 million pounds of food returned only a portion of it belonged to the category that was the reason behind illness and since the company assumed that entire 4 million pound belongs to same category, they in turn tested the sample that was good for consumption but belonged to the batch returned. If such is the case, then the claim made in the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, it is not clear whether chemical approval is enough to ensure that food is safe for consumption. Perhaps it can be the case that along with chemical approval quantity of food consumed is also an important factor that should be kept in mind. Maybe the owners gave a large quantity of food and caused chemical overdose which caused the illness. Additionally it can be the case that the way food was consume was the issue, and reason behind sickness was the food was consumed along with some other food that doesn't get along well with it. Thus saying that recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms mentioned in the argument is considerably wrong.
Thirdly, prompt states that company should not devote further resources for testing and assumed that test for chemicals done on recalled sample is enough. However, it can be the case that results of one test were biased and further testing is required to be conducted by an even handed third party. Therefore cross validation can be important step to ensure arguments validity. Thus saying that recalled food wasn't the problem just by test for chemicals is not right.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is totally flawed due to its reliance on several unstated assumptions. If answer to above unstated assumptions are provided and perhaps a study is conducted to evaluate their validity, then the position made in argument can be proved.
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2096 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.742 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.423 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.776 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.941 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 429, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this conclusion' or 'these conclusions'?
Suggestion: this conclusion; these conclusions
...ptoms that pets showed. However, before these conclusion can be validated answer to three unstat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 38, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Firstly, argument mentions that after pets showed symptoms 4 million pounds of...
^^
Line 3, column 106, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...lion pounds of food was returned but it doesnt clear whether copious pounds of pet fo...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 118, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of food was returned but it doesnt clear whether copious pounds of pet food retur...
^^
Line 5, column 354, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...ical overdose which caused the illness. Additionally it can be the case that the way food w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...Additionally it can be the case that the way food was consume was the issue, and ...
^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'consumed'.
Suggestion: consumed
... can be the case that the way food was consume was the issue, and reason behind sickne...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 517, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...onsumed along with some other food that doesnt get along well with it. Thus saying tha...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 300, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...onducted by an even handed third party. Therefore cross validation can be important step ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 410, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...alidity. Thus saying that recalled food wasnt the problem just by test for chemicals ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 40.0 19.6327345309 204% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2140.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87471526196 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47516920766 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.437357630979 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 652.5 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.660531912 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.882352941 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8235294118 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.435906356022 0.218282227539 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141230494278 0.0743258471296 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.158782556275 0.0701772020484 226% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.246813012313 0.128457276422 192% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.187971201613 0.0628817314937 299% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.