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

While it may be true that the recalled food was not responsible for pets' illness, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for ceasing further investigation into the issue. It is easy to understand that since all chemicals were found to be "approved for use," the pet food might be safe, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to end further resources into the investigation.

Citing complaints from people that had pets who consumed the recalled food, the author reports that the pets experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. It is not clear however how many complaints were submitted. If only one complaint was submitted, then the argument would be strengthened to not devote any more resources. However, if thousands of complaints were received, then the argument would be considerably weakened. Unless the number of complaints is given, the complaints cannot be used to effectively back the author's argument.

Additionally, the author implies that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms of illness because all chemicals found in the recalled food were "approved for use." While this may be true, it does not take into account if the amount of chemical used was approved for the food. For example, high amounts of certain chemicals can be deleterious to ones' health, even if they are approved. To strengthen the author's argument, the author would benefit from saying that the chemicals were used in approved amounts given by an authority or other reliable source.

Building on the implication that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms of illness because they were approved, the author suggests that the recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms. If the recalled food was produced with the same chemicals for a decade, then this may be true. But if new chemicals were recently introduced in the product, then this may not be true. The author does not show how recent the product is to be able to make a conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument does not make a cogent case to end further resources into the investigation of the recalled pet food.