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 argument states that four million pounds of pet food was recalled in response to the complaints received that pets were experiencing symptoms.
The food sample analysis proved that the chemicals used in these foods were approved for use in pet food. Based on the results of this analysis the pet food company concludes that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms. The argument has a made several assumptions while arriving at the conclusion which belittles it.
Firstly, the company assumes that if the chemicals used in the pet food are the ones' which are approved for use then they can not be the reason for the symptoms. It assumes that being approved gives a guarantee that these chemicals will not cause any symptoms. Different chemicals which might seem innocuous and be used very frequently can turn out to be potentially harmful in the long run. If the chemicals used in the food products falls under this category than we cannot say that they cannot be the cause for the symptoms. Moreover the chemicals individually might not have any harmful effects but their combination with other food items or chemicals might be harmful. The company needs to investigate the reaction of it's pet foods with other pet food ingredients.
Some chemicals may not show harmful effects in the beginning but upon repeated use they might start to be harmful. It is important to the time between consumption of the pet food by the pets and the time by which they began showing the symptoms. The symptoms might not be visible immediately after consumption and might show up after a period of time. In this case determining the long term effect of the chemicals used is important. Conducting analysis just for figuring out if the chemicals used are sufficient is not going to be enough. Thus, the company should carry out studies with this respect rigorously.
It is also important to know whether the company has recently changed it's pet food ingredients. This is important because if the company has changed the ingredients, it is possible that the pet food recalled by them is different in composition from the pet food over which the complaints of symptoms have been raised. If the ingredients were indeed different then the claim that only approved chemicals were used is not valid anymore. If the ingredients were changed the company cannot assume or extrapolate the results of analysis of the 4 million pounds of pet food to the food that was actually being consumed.
In conclusion, the company needs to keep investigating the effects of the chemicals being used in pet food and not just rely on the assumption that using approved chemicals will not cause any problems. The chemicals may be harmful in the long run and if not analyzed properly will continue to cause problems. It must thoroughly conduct studies to understand the effects of chemicals under different circumstances and note down potential problems if any.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 495 350
No. of Characters: 2411 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.717 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.871 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.618 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.533 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 268, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'assumption'?
Suggestion: assumption
...mptoms. The argument has a made several assumptions while arriving at the conclusion which ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 530, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... cannot be the cause for the symptoms. Moreover the chemicals individually might not ha...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 337, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...r consumption and might show up after a period of time. In this case determining the long term...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 319, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...omplaints of symptoms have been raised. If the ingredients were indeed different t...
^^
Line 8, column 360, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...f the ingredients were indeed different then the claim that only approved chemicals ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2454.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 495.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95757575758 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67722427971 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.387878787879 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.2932813125 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.695652174 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5217391304 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.392608051301 0.218282227539 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153101529043 0.0743258471296 206% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.171442645139 0.0701772020484 244% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.289457847633 0.128457276422 225% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.153135644796 0.0628817314937 244% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.45 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.