As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">In the above article, the author stated that since tuna can drinks did not contain 5 out of 8 chemicals which are responsible for the cause of dizziness and nausea, the drink is not a health hazard. The Promofood company concluded this fact based on the evidence that the missing 3 items are generally present in all other kinds of canned foods. However, before we this argument can be evaluated the following questions need to be answered.
First of all, it is stated that tuna cans along with other canned foods do contain 3 chemicals that are responsible for dizziness and nausea cause. Is the percentage of the chemicals in the foods same as that present in other canned foods? Or all the other canned foods safe and do not cause dizziness and nausea? In other words, if the percentage of the 3 existing chemicals is high in tuna canned foods when compared to other canned foods then it can be the reason why there is a consumer complaint about dizziness and nausea. Also, it is no where mentioned if all other canned foods are also safe to drink. If they are also causing the same symptoms then the chemists suggestion to send the cans back to market for sale is not a coherent suggestion.
Secondly, what is possibility that the returned cans and also a sample portion of them is a good representative of the whole production market of the product? In other words, it can happen that the foods that are sent back for testing came were previously manufactured at a single unit and that production unit does add a lot of chemicals, where as in general the product might not be harmful for health. Also, only few samples of the sent back cans are being chosen for testing. If the tested cans are a biased sample set (either too good or too bad) then the Promofoods conclusion drawn based on the above the sample set does not hold water.
Thirdly, What if the scenario that was true last year (or in the past) is no longer true (or may be even worse) in future? In other words, Promofoods have taken their sample from returned cans of last year. This set of canned foods may not be a the same representative for the coming years. Looking at the people's complaints, the company might have controlled the usage of the chemicals in their and the foods may no longer be harmful. If this is the case, then the report sent by Promofoods will be flawed.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the Promofood organization does a sensible experiment on current year's products and answer the above three questions by providing more evidence (perhaps in form of systematic research study) then it will be possible to fully evaluate the recommendation to continue consumption of tuna canned foods.</span><br>
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 498 350
No. of Characters: 2271 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.724 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.56 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.728 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 542, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...about dizziness and nausea. Also, it is no where mentioned if all other canned foo...
^^
Line 5, column 663, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemists'' or 'chemist's'?
Suggestion: chemists'; chemist's
...also causing the same symptoms then the chemists suggestion to send the cans back to mar...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 341, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...ction unit does add a lot of chemicals, where as in general the product might not be har...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 436, Rule ID: SCENT_SENT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'scent'?
Suggestion: scent
...r health. Also, only few samples of the sent back cans are being chosen for testing....
^^^^
Line 13, column 240, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'a' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: a; the
...ar. This set of canned foods may not be a the same representative for the coming year...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, in general, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2351.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76876267748 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81454177967 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454361054767 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 718.2 705.55239521 102% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.4354643905 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.55 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.65 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => 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: 0.360212291427 0.218282227539 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120166305622 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659534936306 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196189367089 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597228568404 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.