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 proposed argument, it is stated that a pet food company should not invest more resources in the investigation of the recalled pet food because the recalled food is not the cause for adverse symptoms found in pets. The author has come to this conclusion based on the fact that the chemicals which were used in the pet foods are legally allowed for the production of pet products. However, the author supports this argument with three assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the writer presumes, without evidence, that complaints received by the company regarding the pets who suffered from symptoms like vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness are because of the pet food which they consumed. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps there are some other factors involved that are responsible for the lethargic behavior in pets. It is possible that the weather observed around this season is harsh for many animals, and this was reflected on pets' health. It is also possible that these complaints were made by a very few numbers of people or perhaps by the specific rival company's loyal customers to take the company's reputation to the ground. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument does not hold water.
Secondly, the argument readily claims that or cites that the company's method for studying the samples of pet food is reliable, and it generates correct results, but this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps that author is basing his claim on complete trust in his employee's working procedures. It is likely that the scientist who performed various experiments and tests on the samples were with a biased perspective and hence provided the results in favor of the company. It is possible that the tester did perform only five out of twenty essential tests on the food that gave faulty test outputs. If this is the case, then the argument claim is not warranted and his suggestion that the company should not invest its capital in a further investigation is not overly persuasive.
Finally, even if it is true that the company did perform and test all samples of the pet food and that these tests resulted in a positive output. The author assumes that only the chemical used in the product can deteriorate the food's quality, not the background processes such as the hygiene of the company environment. It is possible that products might have been handled with less seriousness towards the cleanliness of the surroundings. Or perhaps while transporting these pet food bags they might have been contaminated due to bad temperature settings. All of these should be tested further. If it is true that samples were not in the good condition while handling the product, then the author's assertion is invalid and his recommendation will do little justice to convince that no further investigation is required.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide the required evidence and perhaps conduct a systematic research study, then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation not to give funds for the investigation of the pet food products.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 553 350
No. of Characters: 2727 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.849 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.931 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.732 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.136 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.692 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 692, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...on while handling the product, then the authors assertion is invalid and his recommenda...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, while, in conclusion, such as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2782.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 553.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03074141049 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7991855544 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46835443038 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 857.7 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0400939169 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.454545455 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1363636364 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.63636363636 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375759071189 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104127835117 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12363523292 0.0701772020484 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220303425383 0.128457276422 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0933171800494 0.0628817314937 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.