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.
The decision of the food company to stop devoting further resources to the investigation of the symptoms responsible for recalled food that cause the pets various kinds of illness should be analyzed again by the pet food company. Many assumptions have been made on the pet food company's part that causes the illness to the pets and the issue with the recalled food. The company should take the decision of stopping their investigation with more caution
Firstly, the company assumes that the issue could be in the chemical composition of the recalled food and not anything else. There are various reasons why this assumption could be falacious. The company's batch of pet food that went out for sale before would have been corrupted during the making of the product by some disgruntled employee or by some technical error of the machines producing it. The errors made by the machines could be adding sporadic quantities of chemical in the food that should have been added to a specific amount. There could be a possibility that the chemical composition of the pet food it flawless but the packaging of the food is not salubrious. The inner packaging could have been bad because of all the mice's and rats roaming around in the storage room of the packages. If any of these arguements prove to have merit then the company's arguement doesn't holds water.
Secondly, the company presumes that all the complaints could not have been by the owners of the pets, that could have had allergy to a certain chemical in the product. There could be a possibility that the pets detested or were peculiar to the taste of a certain chemical and the chemical is abundant in the product that might have caused the illness to the pets. If this arguement holds true then the company's assumptions is falacious
Finally, the majority of the pets that were sick and had the company's pet food were from a specific region and were sick due to some major disease in the city rather then the food. The company direct assumption that the recalled food was not the reason for the pets illness could have been bolstered with such empirical evidence rather than just withdrawings its decision to investigate the product further.
In conclusion, for the company to progress the company cannot just finalize their decision without taking a survey.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1900 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.786 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.499 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.132 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.415 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 802, 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.
...nd in the storage room of the packages. If any of these arguements prove to have m...
^^
Line 4, column 877, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... have merit then the companys arguement doesnt holds water. Secondly, the company p...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 365, 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.
...ht have caused the illness to the pets. If this arguement holds true then the comp...
^^
Line 8, column 167, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'? 'than' is used for comparisons, 'then' is an expression of time.
Suggestion: than
...o some major disease in the city rather then the food. The company direct assumption...
^^^^
Line 8, column 262, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'pets'' or 'pet's'?
Suggestion: pets'; pet's
...ecalled food was not the reason for the pets illness could have been bolstered with ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87626262626 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51343066155 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421717171717 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 594.9 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 54.9890991053 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.928571429 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2857142857 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35714285714 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.409123993609 0.218282227539 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171747244007 0.0743258471296 231% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.154510291791 0.0701772020484 220% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250161700265 0.128457276422 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.161864741828 0.0628817314937 257% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.