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.
While the conclusion may be true and the pet food is not responsible for pets being ill, there are some assumptions which unstated may lead to the statement to be not consistent.
First of all, one of the assumptions is that there were enough samples tested to determine whether they are innocuous to the pets. If this does not hold the examination may have not revealed the danger. For example, there were 4 million pounds of food, if only 100 pounds were tested it may be statistically insignificant to say that all 4 million pounds are harmless. That is why it is important that there were enough samples used and these samples were chosen randomly which is a crucial requirement for doing statistical analysis.
Secondly, the company probably assumes that the chemicals are not only approved but they do not become poisonous when they interact with other food or drinks. It may be that the owner gives to his/her pets besides food produced by the company other food or drinks and if interaction of chemicals of company's food with the other type becomes harmful, it may be the cause for pets experiencing lethargy and vomiting.
Finally, there is an assumption that exactly this recalled food was the object of complaints. If these 4 million pounds were produced not so much time before and food that caused complaints was produced, for example, one year ago, and it was immediately sold, there may be no correlation between these two 'production units'. The former one (relative to the time) may be produced with some technological commitment that resulted in the different chemical structure of food that may be dangerous for pets' health.
To conclude, there are lot of flaws in the author's argument due to unstated assumptions. If these assumptions are not taken into consideration the statement of the author stays unwarranted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 132, 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.
...whether they are innocuous to the pets. If this does not hold the examination may ...
^^
Line 9, column 44, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...conclude, there are lot of flaws in the authors argument due to unstated assumptions. I...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 90, 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.
...s argument due to unstated assumptions. If these assumptions are not taken into co...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'while', 'for example', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.21021021021 0.25644967241 82% => OK
Verbs: 0.189189189189 0.15541462614 122% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0750750750751 0.0836205057962 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0570570570571 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.024024024024 0.0272364105082 88% => OK
Prepositions: 0.111111111111 0.125424944231 89% => OK
Participles: 0.045045045045 0.0416121511921 108% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.77216911595 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.027027027027 0.026700313972 101% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.102102102102 0.113004496875 90% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.027027027027 0.0255425247493 106% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.024024024024 0.0127820249294 188% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1838.0 2731.13054187 67% => OK
No of words: 309.0 446.07635468 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.94822006472 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1926597562 4.57801047555 92% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.320388349515 0.378187486979 85% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.265372168285 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.200647249191 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.132686084142 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77216911595 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 207.018472906 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498381877023 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 50.0142920247 52.1807786196 96% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 20.039408867 60% => OK
Sentence length: 25.75 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6719382621 57.7814097925 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.166666667 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.75 23.2022227129 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.724660767414 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 52.2872168285 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.35555555556 1.8405768891 74% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.459569652926 0.441005458295 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.142639707127 0.135418324435 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0741359250682 0.0829849096947 89% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.652148341062 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.16843220536 0.147661913831 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.208701382302 0.193483328276 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932242091835 0.0970749176394 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.294742617204 0.42659136922 69% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0689648474362 0.0774707102158 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.288458620465 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728601163024 0.0698173142475 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.