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 that the canned tuna did not after all poses a he

In spite of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea, the author concludes that Promofoods tuna can do not pose any risk on human health. The author has come to this conclusion on the basis of tests performed on samples of canned tuna and apparent absence of five chemicals—among eight— in the tested cans responsible for nausea and dizziness. Also, the author cites the presence of remaining three chemicals in small amount insufficient to pose health risk. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible; however, on closer inspection, it is found to be rife with holes and several unwarranted assumptions. The author needs to address following questions in order to decide whether the conclusion and the argument on which it is based are reasonable.
First of all, how many tuna cans were returned for testing, and how many cans were tested? Does the sample include canned tuna from all the places throughout the nation manufactured at different dates? Since the canned tuna manufactured by Promofoods Tuna Company at different dates could have different composition of the chemicals responsible for posing great risk on human health, it is required for the author to provide compelling answers of the abovementioned questions in order to decide whether the argument presented is reasonable.
Secondly, what is the reliability of the test? What is the expertise of the chemists? And what is the sophistication of the testing devices and the techniques employed for the test for its validity? It is possible that the testing devices were not sophisticated enough to detect the presence of first five chemicals in the samples. It is also possible that the chemists employed for the tests were verdant and might have used unreliable techniques for the test of the presence of such chemicals. If either of the above alternative explanations has some merits, then it is highly likely that the result of the test is distorted and the test itself is unreliable. The author needs to provide convincing answers of the abovementioned questions in order to evaluate the argument.
Thirdly, is there no any other chemical present in the can that is potent enough to pose health risks? Were the quantities of the other three chemicals in the canned tuna sufficiently low in benign amount? It is possible that there could be the presence of other noxious chemicals in the canned tuna which were not detected in the tests, or which could have been ignored by novice chemists in search of other chemicals they were known to cause nausea and dizziness. Further, the author fails to provide unimpeachable data information regarding the presence of actual amount of three chemicals in each tuna can to determine their effects on humans of different susceptibility. The author should provide the answers to these quests in order to provide sufficient ground for the conclusion to stand.
In sum, though the argument presented seems plausible, it lacks persuasiveness as it fails to address some important questions imperative for the evaluation of the conclusion and the argument as a whole. Unless the author provides convincing answers of the questions mentioned above, the argument remains highly dubious and cannot be fully evaluated.