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 writing is describing a problem which a food company, Promofoods, has faced to. The author of the passage provides some information and counts on them as a proof. Based on this information it is state that the products of the Promofoods company did not have any problem that may lead to health risk for consumers. Even if these claims have any ground, the author has not mentioned some important aspects of them, and it challenges all other provided information. Based on this point, it is hard to accept the claims made by the author. In the following, some of these lacks of information are discussed in detail.
First, as the author, the chemist who examined returned cans is a member of the company that means he is not an impartial person. In the case of testing suspected samples which may be the reason of health risk for some people, it is important to ask an impartial expert to do the test. In otherwise, the result of the tests cannot be reliable. It is also useful to ask at least two or three impartial chemists to do the test, and announce the average of their results as the final result.
Second, the writer of the passage has not mentioned the number of tested samples which are assumed as a representor of the whole returned cans. It is possible to assume that the chemist is not examined adequate number of samples, and based on this point, the result may not be valid. If the number of tested samples was mentioned clearly, the validity of the results and the possibility of expanding their results to the whole returned cans were more acceptable.
Third, as the text, the chemist has found three suspected chemicals that are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods as well, but the level of components in cans from different companies are not compared together. The author and the chemist have not mentioned the level of these suspected chemicals, and it is possible to assume that the level of these components in Promofoods’ cans are significantly more than cans from other companies. If this assumption be true, there is a possibility that these level of chemicals may cause health risks and lead to dizziness and nausea. On the other hand, the low level of chemical components in the products of the the other companies has not resulted in any health problem.
To sum up, although the author has tried to provide some information which help to decide about the problem of the company, due to the lack of specific details regarding this information, it is hard to make an accurate decision. To solve this problem, the author should provide some information, such as the number of tested samples and compare the obtained result to the result derived from other companies which have not faced to the same problem. Another point which worth to consider is that the tester should be selected among experts who are impartial and can secure and honest test.
- living in dorm or apartment? 70
- stress in humans 76
- The text is discussing salvage logging which defines it as a way we aim to deal with dead trees and remove them and provides three reasons of support. The professor goes against all of the explained reasons and tells us why she is against the text. 73
- large or small universities? 70
- should people mention other people's mistakes right away or they should ignore it or wait to mention it later. 70
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2335 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.624 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.464 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.455 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 669, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... chemical components in the products of the the other companies has not resulted in any...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 669, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... chemical components in the products of the the other companies has not resulted in any...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, regarding, second, so, third, well, at least, such as, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => 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: 2407.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 505.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76633663366 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58414400057 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.405940594059 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.454251525 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.35 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.25 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
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: 0.208085460312 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693122143346 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0526883941901 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118872458695 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479689910071 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.