The following appeared in a business magazine.
As a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna, the company requested that eight million cans of its tuna be returned for testing. Promofoods concluded that the canned tuna did not, after all, pose a health risk. This conclusion is based on tests performed on samples of the recalled cans by chemists from Promofoods; the chemists found that of the eight food 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 small amounts of the three remaining suspected chemicals but pointed out that these occur naturally in all canned foods.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be addressed in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to the questions would help to evaluate the conclusion.
There is a report of recalled tuna cans from Promofoods in a business magazine. After consumers have the symptom of dizziness and nausea, the Promofoods recalls eight million cans of tuna for detecting. They claim that their tuna cans could not cause any health problem. They suggest that according to their testing consequence, there are eight food chemicals would cause dizziness and nausea. The five did not find among their cans and the other three were too minimum amount to cause the symptom. However, there are numerous questions need to be investigated before we accept this conclusion.
To begin with, the company recalled eight million cans for testing. It is doubtful that whether all these eight million cans were examined. If the company just tested these cans randomly or just tested some groups of them, it is possible that the problem cans were the missed ones. The conclusion, therefore, would be partial. The company needs to offer more details of the testing, and they have to guarantee that all these recalled cans all have opportunities to be detected.
The other equivocal fact is that the conclusion was based on the testing performance which was executed by their own chemists. Given the dubious honor of the earlier complaints, the confidence of the assertion seems untenable. Perhaps this scientific report is fake to belie the problems tuna cans. There are plenty of examples that the scientists are paid to cover the truth. Some scientists, for instance, are paid to proclaim that the green housing effect is not existent for the idea of commercial benefits. Moreover, it cannot be sure if test regulations are standard. Food safety occurred in Taiwan usually because of the different testing standard. Promofoods need to supply the evidence that the test was from the professional and non-business relationship laboratory to strengthen its reliability.
On the other hand, the company asserts that there are eight most commonly chemicals for causing dizziness and nausea. It could be a possibility that there are some non-most commonly chemicals in the tuna cans and cause the symptom since there is a fact that consumers got dizziness and nausea. The company should analyze more deeply to figure out if they overlook the chemicals could cause people sick.
Finally, at the end of this claim, Promofoods indicates that although the three chemicals which were the most commonly chemicals for dizziness and nausea were found in these tuna cans, they were small amounts and naturally occurred in all canned food. Since these chemicals are common in all canned food, the ramifications of feeling uncomfortable are unconvincing. Why do these tuna cans cause the symptom but others? Additionally, there is no information about the regular mounts occurred in canned food would be in the safe zone. Promofoods company should provide more details about these three chemicals.
In conclusion, the argument is not convincing as it represents. To reinforce the statement, the arguer should offer the proof of more complete and professional testing, the other possible chemicals would cause dizziness and nausea, and the information of three chemicals. Without these details, it is unwarranted to accept the argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-07-31 | Abhishek2113 | 43 | view |
- The charts below show the main reasons for study among students of different age groups and the amount of support they receive from employers. 78
- In some countries, young people are encouraged to work or travel for a year between finishing high school and starting universities studies.Discuss the advantage and disadvantage for young people who decide to do this. 67
- Universities should accept equal numbers of male and female students in every subject. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 56
- In some countries, the average weight of people is increasing and their level of health and fitness is decreasing.What do you think are the causes of these problems and what measures could be taken to solve them?Give reasons for your answer and include an 78
- It's generally believed that some people are born with certain talents, for instance for music and sport, and others are not. However, it's sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to become good sports person or musician.Discuss the two ideas givin 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...l have opportunities to be detected. The other equivocal fact is that the conclu...
^^^
Line 5, column 280, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'problems'' or 'problem's'?
Suggestion: problems'; problem's
... scientific report is fake to belie the problems tuna cans. There are plenty of examples...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2729.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 520.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24807692308 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70617240449 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440384615385 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2640849424 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.9666666667 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3333333333 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.16666666667 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.305945608289 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863871965994 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.089044286684 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163029471651 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0831812508037 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.