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 an

Essay topics:

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.

On the surface, the company's argument that no additional resources should be used to investigate the complaints of illness in pets seems reasonable. However, further examination of assumptions is required to deem this argument valid.

First, the company has assumed that only chemicals in the food can be the cause of illness symptoms. It is possible that unhygienic preparation methods had been responsible for adulteration of the food. Thus, not just the ingredients, but also the production and storage methods should be examined to determine whether the food is fit for consumption.

In addition to generally unhygienic practices, it is possible that the batch of food that was observed to be associated with symptoms had been adulterated due to some other reasons (bad storage, inclement weather etc), while the recalled food was not affected by these factors. Thus, it is possible that the recalled food was safe, even though the food actually consumed was not. It would be wrong to extrapolate on the basis of the recalled samples that the product which actually reached the homes of consumers is safe too.

Further, the claim that approved chemicals have been used in the food has been made on the basis of tests conducted by the company itself. The crucial question then, becomes whether the testing has been foolproof and unbiased? Did the company have the wherewithal to rigorously test the samples using objective, scientific techniques? These questions need to be answered satisfactorily before accepting the claim of the company.

The given argument discusses the contention of a pet food company that resources should not be devoted to the investigation of the pet food, as it has been found that only approved chemicals have been used in the food. However, a careful examination of the underlying assumptions suggests that the argument might be flawed. The company should take an initiative to get the samples tested by an independent and disinterested agency to determine whether the food is safe. Further, an internal audit also seems necessary to review the production, packaging and storage methods, which might have contributed to the adulteration of its products.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (10 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 351 350
No. of Characters: 1796 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.328 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.843 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.962 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.604 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5