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.
In the above magazine, the author argues that dizziness and nausea of consumers are not caused by the Promo food tuna. The author supports his argument on the basis of the test result, which concludes that five of eight food chemicals, which are most commonly blamed for causing dizziness and nausea were not found in the tuna cans. Furthermore, the author strengthens his argument by the test results, which show three remaining suspected chemicals for dizziness occur naturally in all canned foods. However, before evaluating the author’s argument three questions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author argues that the canned tuna did not pose a health risk, since chemists from promo food did not find any baleful materials in the tuna cans. One reader may raise questions about the other factors of maintaining the cans. Perhaps the tuna cans in the stores are poorly preserved. Maybe they sold the cans, which were past their expiry dates. Then, examining the materials in the tuna cans will not solve the problem. Maybe the poorly preserved tuna cans caused the damage. If, the above scenario is true then, the author's conclusion holds no water. If, the author is able to offer more admissible evidence perhaps in the form of a survey of each store, then, the author’s argument is credible to a certain extent.
Secondly, the author argues that five of 8 blight materials were not present in the tuna cans. One may raise questions about the authenticity of the results. Maybe there are other chemicals, which are used for enhancing the taste of tuna in the tuna can. Even if this is not the case, the cans were tested by the chemists of the Promo food tuna. There is a possibility that they may give a biased opinion or they may alter the taste results in order to avert the blame of their company. If any one of the above scenarios is true then the author’s argument is built unreliably. The author did not provide any veritable evidence regarding the testing of the tuna cans. If the author is able to provide more evidence, perhaps in the form of a generalised study of the tuna cans, then it will be possible to evaluate the author’s argument.
Thirdly, the author argues that 3 of 8 harmful materials were present in the tuna cans, but these occur naturally in all canned foods. Is it okay to use a circumstance from one thing to predict and generalised the other? In other words, is it okay to compare all the can foods? Maybe tuna cans cannot be similar to other can foods. There is a possibility that in a recent food survey, the government strictly prohibited the use of 3 remaining substances, which were found in the tuna cans, then one cannot argues that these three substances will pose a minor threat to health issues. Maybe these three substances are more pernicious than the other 5 substances in order to cause dizziness and nausea the above scenario is true, then, the author's claim is seriously weakened. If the author is able to provide more evidence in a form of a research study about canned food then, it will be feasible to evaluate the author's reliability of the arguments.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument stands now is seriously weakened due to its reliance on several assumptions. If the author is able to answer the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study) then, it is possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that the Promo food tuna not be blamed for the customers' dizziness and nausea.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-31 | raghavchauhan619 | 58 | view |
| 2022-07-27 | joe12 | 58 | view |
| 2022-07-12 | Soumyadip Kar | 60 | view |
| 2022-06-30 | sefeliz | 55 | view |
| 2021-09-25 | miqbalhilmi | 59 | view |
- Educators should base their assessment of students learning not on students grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas trends and concepts that those facts illustrate Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disag 66
- The following appeared on the Website Science News Today In a recent survey of more than 5 000 adolescents the teens who reported eating the most meals with their families were the least likely to use illegal drugs tobacco or alcohol Family meals were als 68
- In an attempt to improve highway safety Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways But this effort has failed the number of accidents has not decreased and based on reports by the highway patrol man 63
- 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 tha 60
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 611 350
No. of Characters: 2845 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.972 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.656 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.445 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.069 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.481 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.69 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.491 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 533, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...f, the above scenario is true then, the authors conclusion holds no water. If, the auth...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 488, 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.
...er to avert the blame of their company. If any one of the above scenarios is true ...
^^
Line 7, column 914, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...en, it will be feasible to evaluate the authors reliability of the arguments. In the...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 377, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'customers'' or 'customer's'?
Suggestion: customers'; customer's
...e Promo food tuna not be blamed for the customers dizziness and nausea.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2928.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 611.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.79214402619 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97176167858 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53406639529 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.36170212766 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 927.9 705.55239521 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6974524772 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.965517241 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0689655172 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1724137931 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.187670666705 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0692346197566 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595152192768 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135415275074 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359188004635 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.