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.
The argument concludes that the company should not devote further resources to the investigation because the chemicals found in their pet foods are already approved. The argument fails to answer many vital questions and does not give enough data to be proved logical and warranted. The first question that should be answered is: What is the proportion of chemicals to be added to the pet food for its safe consumption? Without the right amounts and proportions, the foods can have drastic effect on animals.
On the other hand, the data of how many out of the 4 million pets were adversely affected by the consumption of the product is not stated in the argument. Only with a numerical value of how many pets had consumed the food and how many out of them were badly affected can give us the right insight on whether the pet food is actually dangerous for the animals or not. Another question that is not addressed in the argument is: Is there a limit to which the animals consume this food? Yes it should be safe to consume in whatever amounts if it is ideal, but was there a prescribed maximum? The answer to this question might raise doubts on the quality of the food.
There is absolutely no data about whether the animals had only consumed this product and how many of them had consumed only this. It requires serious investigation to check whether the pets had only eaten this product or is there anything common among the people who had complained. A detailed enquiry on the diets which the pets have followed on the previous days of their illness will lead us to any logical conclusion on whether the pet food from the given company is solely responsible for their bad conditions. Another important question that should be addressed is whether the chemicals found in this food are prone to react to any others in different foods to form something harmful. This implies more resources should be invested into the investigation as checking on the mere presence of approved chemicals will not give us any answers on whether or not the product is safe.
Rounding up all the missing details that need to be addressed and the possible questions that need to be answered, I strongly believe the argument alone is insufficient to reach conclusions. The final verdict given in the argument to not devote further resources to the investigation is absolutely wrong. Only if the questions about the proportionality of chemicals that is used, the amount of food that could safely be ingested by the animals and the details about the diet and recent life events of the animals be given, only then can we reach to a logical conclusion.
| 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 |
- 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 30
- Some parents forbid young children from owning smartphones (cell phones with Internet access), while others disagree and believe that they are important tools for keeping in touch. Which point of view do you think is better, and why? 70
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 83
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- Although it s a new technology solar energy provides benefits to the entire world First solar energy eliminates our reliance on non renewable fossil fuels Additionally solar energy is non pollutant which makes it better for everyone Finally there is almos 80
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 458 350
No. of Characters: 2143 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.626 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.679 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.559 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.327 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.294 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 283, 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.
...ata to be proved logical and warranted. The first question that should be answered ...
^^^
Line 3, column 36, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun out seems to be countable; consider using: 'many outs'.
Suggestion: many outs
... On the other hand, the data of how many out of the 4 million pets were adversely af...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 231, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun out seems to be countable; consider using: 'many outs'.
Suggestion: many outs
...many pets had consumed the food and how many out of them were badly affected can give us...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 849, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...emicals will not give us any answers on whether or not the product is safe. Rounding up al...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, so, then, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2180.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75982532751 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60814234926 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427947598253 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7834128166 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.235294118 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9411764706 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.11764705882 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260240078941 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0968386920524 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080004352545 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177101050512 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0876600714788 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.