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 author of this argument fails to provide explanation for a myraid of deductions. Firstly, the chemicals, although, are approved to be used in pet food could have been wrongly approbated, some chemical might not have been tested rigoursly and due to lack of proper experimentation the dog fod has become toxic. Secondly, assuming that the chemicals used in pet food are correctly approved, still the author needs to conduct further investigation because the packaging and storing of dog food could be an issue which is the causing the approbated chemicals although not pernicious when sequestered but reacting with the external conditions becomes toxic for dogs. Thirdly, the role of investigation is to reach a correct conclusion, hence the author fails to logically understand the situation.
Humans are prone to error that's why we have experimentation and hypothesis testing in order to increase the degree of confidence with which we can claim a fact. the approving authorities may have been negligent in their duties therefore the recalled food indeed becomes responsible for the illness in dogs. The author fails to provide any evidence to prove the contrary case hence the invesigation should not be stopped. Although, if author did provide some evidence it would definately strengthen his/her position but still more evidence would be required to confirm the fact that the pet food is not resonsible for illness.
The recalled food as mentioned in the introduction could also be pernicious, not due to the harmful chemicals but due to the external milieu factors like packaging and storing. Generally, the way we store and package food is partly the reason for the plummeting in the quality of food and the recalled food may have been suffering similar fate. Further, the reputation of the company is still in jeopardy so the company has the duty of finding the correct cause so that such a casuality may never occur in the future. If the author adds something along the lines of rigorous testing was performed and indeed external factors not seem to be the cause of toxicity the conclusion would gain a little bit strength to the conclusion which is currently seeming implausible.
To conclude, as the author fails to account for numerous inconsistencies in the deductions, the conclusion seems unwarranted. Further addition of facts would strengthen the conclusion partly but the argument is still won't become irrefutable, hence the conclusion is perhaps lacking.
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 58
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in the government industry or any other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 88
- In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view. 66
- The most effective way to understand contemporary culture is to analyze the trends of its youth 66
- The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school Last year Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor Swift Nutrition This company serves low fat low calorie meals th 59
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 27, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
...tuation. Humans are prone to error thats why we have experimentation and hypothe...
Line 4, column 134, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...o increase the degree of confidence with which we can claim a fact. the approving...
Line 4, column 163, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
...idence with which we can claim a fact. the approving authorities may have been neg...
Line 6, column 692, Rule ID: LITTLE_BIT
Message: Reduce redundancy by using 'little' or 'bit'.
Suggestion: little; bit
...of toxicity the conclusion would gain a little bit strength to the conclusion which is cur...
Line 6, column 736, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...le bit strength to the conclusion which is currently seeming implausible. To conclude, as the aut...
Line 8, column 284, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...ence the conclusion is perhaps lacking.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2089.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20947630923 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8948612257 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491271820449 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.5170836417 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.214285714 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6428571429 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22799712488 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0766130816674 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0852411928262 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130754950982 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0788431173782 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.3799401198 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.53 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 2047 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.079 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.852 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5