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.
The author of the argument cited that due to the numerous complaints by the consumers, Promofoods eight million cans tuna be returned and then after the test on these cans revealed that eight of the chemicals that cause nausea and dizziness, five where not present and rest of the three where present in all other kinds of canned foods. The argument might appear logical and convincing at first glance. However, a more critical analysis of justification provided by the author highlight many queries. Therefore, premises in their current form are not cogent and the argument is prevalent with unwarranted assumptions and susceptible for attack.
First and foremost, it is not cogent that the . Stock consumed by consumers and tested by the company was manufactured on same day. For instance, the customers might have consumed the old the stock which was available in the store. But the cans on which the chemical test has been performed might the new stock.
Secondly, the chemical test was conducted by the same company which produces the tuna cans. Employees may be lenient while testing their own cans. The reports provided by them may be manipulated so that, consumers will not blame the company and find some other reason for this problem.
Thirdly, the premise that rest of the chemical is present in all the cans is faulty. As per the fact all the eight chemicals contribute to nausea and dizziness. The amount of the remaining three chemicals present in tuna can is not mentioned. For instance, the rest of the three chemical present in all cans must be less than one percent which is not harmful. However, the chemical content in tuna can may be more than five percent.
Lastly, it is not mentioned that costumers complained regarding tuna fish cans. Since, Promofoods can manufacture other meats items and if the consumers have complained regarding the red meat supplied by the company and the test is conducted on tuna fish can then it is not convincing.
To sum up, the authors conclusion is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. The writer should provided additional evidence to reinforce his argument. However, the author failed to examine this issues stock consumed by consumers and tested by the company was manufactured on same day, employees may be lenient while testing their own cans and rendering the argument indefensible.
- Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other 54
- A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per d 78
- Those who treat politics and morality as though they were separate realms fail to understand either the one or the other 54
- It is dangerous to trust only intelligence. 16
- "A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer." 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
----------------------------
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 1914 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.92 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.608 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.64 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.81 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ssumptions and susceptible for attack. First and foremost, it is not cogent tha...
^^^
Line 3, column 43, Rule ID: THE_SENT_END[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...rst and foremost, it is not cogent that the . Stock consumed by consumers and tested ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 46, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... and foremost, it is not cogent that the . Stock consumed by consumers and tested ...
^^
Line 7, column 226, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'be'
Suggestion: be
...ing three chemicals present in tuna can is not mentioned. For instance, the rest o...
^^
Line 11, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...it is not convincing. To sum up, the authors conclusion is based on unsubstantiated ...
^^^^^^^
Line 14, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ndering the argument indefensible.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1979.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08740359897 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69234310111 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.45501285347 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 67.3092500879 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2380952381 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5238095238 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38095238095 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.329002649044 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0924908017994 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845576823483 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166273600901 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658338470245 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.