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

The argument given in the business magazine states that Canned tuna from Promofoods does not pose any health risk. It bases its conclusion based on the experiment conducted with selected samples and analyzing the presence of eight suspected chemicals. This argument seems plausible at the first instant. On scrutiny, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A valid stand can be taken on the argument only after answering several questions that might arise out of the conclusion arrived by the author.

Firstly, the author just states that 'numerous' complaints of dizziness and nausea arrived from the consumers of Promofoods tuna. However, the term 'numerous' must be quantified. For example, it might be the case that only 100 people complained of the food items where as 1000 of them purchased it. Hence, the numbers have to be quoted properly. Subsequently, the author assumes that only Canned tuna foods causes these health disorders. The people might have been affected due to taking some other pernicious food items. Therefore, the author seems to have considered Canned tuna foods to be the 'only cause' of health problems among the people.

Secondly, the experiment conducted to ascertain the health effects of canned tuna foods is not satisfactory. What kind of tests were carried out and what is the time period during which the tests were carried out? Moreover, how were the samples chosen for the test? - These questions have to be resolved by the author. If the samples were chosen in a random manner, then it is highly likely that the result would not have reflected the reality. When the details of the tests conducted are not mentioned, it is near to impossible for the readers to believe in the authenticity and the reliability of the tests. As a result, more information about the tests conducted turns out to be a necessity in order to strengthen his evidence.

Thirdly, the author states that five of the eight chemicals tested were not found in any of the 'tested' cans. However, as quoted earlier, these chemicals could be found in intolerable amounts in the 'untested' cans. Only if cans from all kinds of possibilities are chosen for sampling, can this result be verified. Additionally, the author states that three chemicals found in these tested cans were the common ones found in other cans. Though these three chemicals are common ones, they might also be a reason for indirectly leading to dizziness and nausea. Therefore, the author seems to have preempted the thought of applicability, after having found the commonality of these three chemicals. It is an incorrect assumption and overlooks the ultimate aim of conducting the experiment - to identify chemicals causing nausea or symptoms of dizziness.

Thus, the author has reached a hasty conclusion based on assuming positive answers to questions concerning: the reliability of the proper quantification of the term 'numerous'; dismissing other reasons for health problems among consumers; assumptions of reliability and authenticity of the conducted tests; reasons for overlooking certain chemicals, despite they being common. The author can strengthen his claim by quoting in numbers - the population consuming and being affected by canned tuna. In addition to quantification, the author can solely attribute the health-problems to the chemicals in food-items by conducting a medical survey. Also, no preconceived notion must reflect the decision about the effect of chemicals. They are to be determined experimentally first and then correlated with other aspects. Only if these questions are answered and a thorough explanation is given, can this author's argument be considered pragmatic.