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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The above argument concludes that the pet food company should discontinue the devotion of further resources to the investigation. This conclusion is based on the premise that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms experienced by the pets. However in order to properly evaluate this argument, there is need for a thorough examination of the three assumptions that the author makes.
First and foremost, the author assumes that the tested samples from the recalled food is representative of the population of recalled food. It is quite possible that there is an incidence of sampling bias whereby the selected samples do not give a fairly accurate representation of the total recalled food. It is stated that the company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food. Perhaps only a thousand pounds of the uncontaminated pet food was sampled for testing. If the above scenario is true, then the author's argument is significantly flawed.
Secondly, in making his argument, the author assumes that the recalled food underwent no changes within the timeframe that they were bought and then recalled. Probably, the packaging technique introduces an effervescent chemical that wears off within a very short period of time. However, this chemical might have been the cause of certain irritation that triggered the symptoms experienced in the pets. It is very possible that, as at the time of recall, the chemical had already worn off and consequently could not be detected during the sample testing. If the above is valid, then the validity of the author's argument is highly questionable
Furthermore, the author's argument relies on an assumption that the approval process - of the chemicals used in pet food - is foolproof. Perhaps, the process of approval of these chemicals is compromised due to certain reasons such as faulty equipment. This could to lead to the approval of chemicals that might be harmful to the anatomy of pets. If this happens, then the author's argument does not hold water.
Conclusively, the aforementioned assumptions will significantly weaken the author's argument if they prove unwarranted.
| 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 |
- 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 an 62
- Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current tren 58
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 50
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 87
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 339 350
No. of Characters: 1746 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.291 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.15 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.9 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.292 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.344 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 257, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... the symptoms experienced by the pets. However in order to properly evaluate this argu...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 503, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...If the above scenario is true, then the authors argument is significantly flawed. Seco...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 264, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ical that wears off within a very short period of time. However, this chemical might have been...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 604, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...bove is valid, then the validity of the authors argument is highly questionable Furthe...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s highly questionable Furthermore, the authors argument relies on an assumption that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 373, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tomy of pets. If this happens, then the authors argument does not hold water. Conclusi...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 76, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sumptions will significantly weaken the authors argument if they prove unwarranted.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1782.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25663716814 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96363003772 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.495575221239 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.6752963365 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.823529412 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9411764706 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.354169682482 0.218282227539 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.132973735974 0.0743258471296 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.168051192509 0.0701772020484 239% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192173589023 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.187582732954 0.0628817314937 298% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.