As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promofoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk. This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods.
This argument is based on the complaints of nausea and dizziness from the consumers who have used canned tuna. Although Promofoods had recalled eight million cans of tuna and also some samples of tuna to lab for testing, it concluded that the cans did not contain any chemical, which can cause any health hazard.
The results of the tests done by chemists from Promofoods do not hold any ground, as these results are not supported by any strong evidence. As per the chemists from Promofoods, there are eight chemicals responsible for dizziness and nausea and five of them were not present in the tested cans of tuna. However, they have not considered the possibility that certain chemicals in contact with other chemicals can also cause dizziness and nausea. The results of this testing can also be biased as the testing has been done only on a few samples. Hence, it cannot be said that five chemicals not present in the tested samples were not present in the cans consumed by the affected buyers. Promofoods should have collected the cans from where tuna was consumed and that caused health risk for many people. It might be possible that those cans contained these chemicals. When it comes to testing, you cannot generalize the results.
According to Promofoods, five suspected chemicals were not present in the tested samples and the other three are present in the other canned foods and do not cause any bad effect. However, this is again without any strong evidence. It is just an assumption that the chemicals, which do not cause any bad effect in one canned food, will not cause any ill effect in canned tuna. It might be possible that one of these chemicals causes health risk when exposed to some specific chemical present in tuna. Hence, it is not right to say in general that tuna cans were not responsible for the symptoms of dizziness and nausea. It can be said the whole conclusion of Promofoods is based on weak evidence. The results of the tests done by the chemists are not very convincing.
Promofoods should have done tests on a large number of canned tuna. It should have gathered more results to make its study more convincing. However, it cannot be said that the study done by Promofoods is baseless. It is entirely possible that there are some other chemicals, which are responsible for the symptoms of nausea and dizziness and it is not found yet. Promofoods should also take this possibility into account.
In the end, it can be said that the entire study of this argument is based on assumption that the eight chemicals responsible for nausea and dizziness were not present in the tuna cans. This is an important study and Promofoods should work on providing stronger evidence. They have to prove that there was no biased sampling and the testing was correct. The chemists have to prove that the three chemicals, which are normally found in other canned foods, do not cause any harmful effect in tuna.
- Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversialKnowing about the past cannot people in making important decisions today.write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agre 62
- The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of themen and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. 50
- It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. Indeveloping and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compe 50
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a tenyear budget for the city of Calatrava. "The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only onehalf that of five years ago. Thus the number of students enr 55
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support theyneed in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.Write a response in which you discuss t 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2375 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.684 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.363 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.861 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.308 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 38, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
.... Promofoods should have done tests on a large number of canned tuna. It should have gathered mo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, so, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2428.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78895463511 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4454603113 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.337278106509 0.468620217663 72% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 756.9 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 4.96107784431 343% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.8721265016 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3846153846 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.53846153846 5.70786347227 27% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.3896836091 0.218282227539 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127050916269 0.0743258471296 171% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0803366129267 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27060132975 0.128457276422 211% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0852091279326 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.7 8.32208582834 81% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.