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 argument that the company should not devote any further resources to the investigation on the bases of the report that says all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food seems plausible at first glance. Though the author have some point, which are based on the unsubstantiated evidentiary support which makes his argument tenuous.
The primary issue lie in the author's premises. The author did not provide any other factors which may have caused the signs of illness. This signs of illness which id found in many pet maybe not just due to the consumption of the food, but it may have include other factors also, like in what the temperature in which food was stored, what kind of pets is majorly suffering for this illness, and much more. All these factors could have been accounted for proper investigation of the product. It may have been possible that the chemical that are used in the food is suitable for the dogs but not suitable for cats.
In addition, author assumes that the chemicals which are used in pet food is stable when mixed with other food product. The author claims that they tested the recalled sample and found out that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food, but fails to examine that those chemicals are approved when used with other chemicals. This might be possible that the food given to the pets are mixed with some other substance, say milk or water, due to which pets have experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness.
However, the author surely have some issues with his argument, but it is not to say that his whole argument is baseless. The claim well have proved to some extend that it is highly unlikely that the pet food have caused any of these sign of illness. But it is not to say that the company should not devote further resources to the investigation of this problem. Still, there are high possibilities that vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness in pet is due to their pet food. In order to be completely sure about the illness they should further continue their investigation.
In conclusion, due to author's irrational premises and various flaw in his assumption, it is not plausible to say that the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation. The author should restructure his premises, fix the flaws in his assumption, and give substantiate reasoning, in order to strengthen his argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 253, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'included'.
Suggestion: included
...onsumption of the food, but it may have include other factors also, like in what the te...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 157, Rule ID: SOME_EXTEND[1]
Message: Did you mean 'extent' ("extent" is a noun, "extend" is a verb)?
Suggestion: extent
...ess. The claim well have proved to some extend that it is highly unlikely that the pet...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, may, so, still, then, well, in addition, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2107.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82151029748 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5635092511 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.384439359268 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 646.2 705.55239521 92% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.1123596344 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.941176471 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7058823529 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29411764706 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.347899460073 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128348968182 0.0743258471296 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127363290106 0.0701772020484 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210763722927 0.128457276422 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0985523169518 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.