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.
In the argument, it is stated that a pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experience illness but after testing the samples from recall food, company found that the chemicals used in pet food are approved to use. However, the author made a huge assertion, that the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms and the company should not devote further investigation, which lacks significant probes and therefore inappropriate to infer above conclusion.
The argument doesn't provide any details about testing like how many number of sample tested, how this testing has been conducted, how these samples have been selected among 4 million pounds of food. If the sample tested have been small in numbers then taking those tests as an evidence would not be justified. Also, how reliable this testing is another question too.
The argument depends on the assumption that the samples mirrors all the 4 million pound food. However, no further details about how these samples represent all recalled food. The author hasn't provide any facts that all the 4 million pound food is identical in all the nature, like - amount and type of the ingredients used in all food are similar in nature. Therefore, this argument requires more evidence or further investigation.
Another conjecture has been made in the argument is that the chemicals found in the food that are approved for use in pet food. The speaker hasn't provided any statistical probes for this argument, for example, how munch amount of a particular chemical should be allowed top use. What if some chemical is approved to use with some limited amount and company failed to maintain that criteria, then the illness of the pet, may be the result of consumption of these chemicals from that pet food. The author needs to provide more solid proofs to make this argument stronger and believable, otherwise this argument would be count as unwarranted.
All in all, the argument's assertion has relied on indefensible proofs, and therefore the author cannot make convincing proposition that the company is not responsible for the illness of pets after consuming their food. The author must provide adamant proofs to make this assertion valid by doing further deep investigation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-07 | Aaishani De | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-30 | Mufaddal Rangwala | 58 | view |
| 2022-07-21 | gewkimrtnabovwtejo | 23 | view |
| 2022-07-20 | gewkimrtnabovwtejo | 58 | view |
| 2022-06-22 | Nalu00 | 83 | view |
- Studying foodways what foods people eat and how they produce acquire prepare and consume them is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture 82
- Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military 55
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e mail correspondence Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity as well as protect the company from lawsuits Write a response in which you discu 50
- Endotherms are animals such as modern birds and mammals that keep their body temperatures constant For instance humans are endotherms and maintain an internal temperature of 37 C no matter whether the environment is warm or cold Because dinosaurs were 90
- It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts than it is for them to learn facts 81
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1890 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.935 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.567 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.971 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.625 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...nfer above conclusion. The argument doesnt provide any details about testing like ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 64, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun number seems to be countable; consider using: 'many numbers'.
Suggestion: many numbers
...vide any details about testing like how many number of sample tested, how this testing has ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...represent all recalled food. The author hasnt provide any facts that all the 4 millio...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 141, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...proved for use in pet food. The speaker hasnt provided any statistical probes for thi...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ount as unwarranted. All in all, the arguments assertion has relied on indefensible pr...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1939.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10263157895 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6269098071 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452631578947 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.5453427953 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.266666667 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3333333333 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06666666667 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.457748895473 0.218282227539 210% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164840230256 0.0743258471296 222% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.193506103158 0.0701772020484 276% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.28082329433 0.128457276422 219% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.205743298806 0.0628817314937 327% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.