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 states that a pet food company decided not to pursue more investigation on its recalled food because it concluded that its food was not responsible for the illness caused in pets based on the fact that all chemicals found in the food were those that were approved for usage. On the outset its claim seems reasonable, but there are some unanswered questions that need to be answered before the company can shut down the investigation with full certainty.
The first question that needs to be addressed is how the samples for the food were chosen. As the amount of pet food that was recalled amounted to 4 million pounds, it is understandable that the company decided to test samples instead of investigating the whole amount. However, there is no information on the details of the samples. Were they chosen sufficiently random enough to ensure that the samples are indeed representative of the whole amount? The company could have gone through a pre-screening test to find samples that didn't have any harmful chemicals to lead to the conclusion that there are no problems with their product. There needs to be details on how the samples were chosen in order to fully validate that the quality of the recalled food is pristine.
Also, further scrutiny is needed on the chemicals that were found to be approved for use in pet food. Based on the information given in the argument, there is no way of knowing whether the chemicals were approved to be used in a mixture with other chemicals, or just by themselves. There could have been a noxious chemical reaction when the chemicals were mixed together, which would not be found in the investigation if the chemicals were tested separately one by one. The company should put more resources to find out if there is a possibility that the problem could have been due to a harmful mix of chemicals that are innocuous if used separately, but lethal when combined together.
Another point to consider in this investigation is that there is a total lack of research on other ingredients of the recalled pet food. There are many other ingredients that comprise pet food besides chemicals; to enhance the flavor of the food, there could be portions of meat or chicken for dog food, and tuna or anchovies for cat food. Also, there could be various types of vegetables contained in the pet food. It could be possible that the pets suffered such excruciating illnesses because these other ingredients were spoiled when put into manufacturing. Therefore, the company should not cease its investigation based solely on the fact that the chemicals were deemed safe; it should look into other ingredients that could have gone bad at the time they were making the product.
In conclusion, the pet food company should not make a rash decision to close its investigation because the chemicals in the food were found to be fit for the food. Data isn't sufficient enough to confirm that the samples of the test could represent the whole recalled amount, nor is there enough evidence to say that the chemicals wouldn't cause a harmful reaction. Also, there are other comprising materials in the pet food that have not been considered yet, which could be found to be harmful. As a result, the investigation should be continued.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-14 | srujanakeerthi | 49 | view |
| 2019-12-03 | Opak Pulu | 65 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | farhadmoqimi | 29 | view |
| 2019-11-05 | Prudhvi6054 | 63 | view |
| 2019-11-03 | solankis304 | 29 | view |
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee."We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rathe 66
- 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 foo 69
- Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.Write a 66
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 55
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 561 350
No. of Characters: 2660 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.867 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.742 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.171 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the investigation with full certainty. The first question that needs to be addr...
^^
Line 2, column 532, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...pre-screening test to find samples that didnt have any harmful chemicals to lead to t...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lity of the recalled food is pristine. Also, further scrutiny is needed on the ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly, but lethal when combined together. Another point to consider in this invest...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the time they were making the product. In conclusion, the pet food company shou...
^^
Line 5, column 171, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...were found to be fit for the food. Data isnt sufficient enough to confirm that the s...
^^^^
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ough evidence to say that the chemicals wouldnt cause a harmful reaction. Also, there a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, look, so, therefore, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 47.0 19.6327345309 239% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2708.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85304659498 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71445218503 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406810035842 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 851.4 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.4806681493 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.952380952 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5714285714 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.14285714286 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.339972937129 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129326542901 0.0743258471296 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117574898306 0.0701772020484 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243529470824 0.128457276422 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.086372775029 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.