The following appeared in a business magazine."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

Because of numerous complaints on dizziness and nausea Promofoods has returned 8M cans of its tuna. The company has concluded that these cans possess no health risk. This statement is based on evidence which ought to be carefully questioned in order to give a comprehensive estimation of the soundness of the conclusion.

To begin with, we are told that the test has been conducted on samples of the returned cans by chemists from the company. At the same time, we are not given any information about the sample of the research. The likeliness exists that it does not represent the whole returned lot. We may assume that eight millions can were produced in a significant time-span and perhaps on several plants but the sample may be too small in number or cans for the test may be taken from the same package. The writer might have made the argument stronger had he given us complete data about the sample of the research. What is more, the chemists who did the test are employed by Promofoods, the possibility exists that these chemists may be biased to the test owing to the fact that they financially depend on Promofoods and thus they are vulnerable to possible manipulations. A similar test conducted by independent research laboratory may tackle our doubts.

The second evidence which is shared with us is that these scientists have found three out of eight the most commonly blamed for the symptoms chemicals were found in the tested cans. However, perhaps some uncommon or/and chemicals may be a real cause of people's symptoms, the test which was aimed at the eight widespread chemicals may not found these uncommon ones. Furthermore, we also know that three elements have been found in the cans. May they or their combination lead to the symptoms and health risk, perhaps the answer is "yes".

Finally, the arguer claims that these three chemicals were found in small amount. But some poisons are detrimental even in microscopic concentration. The probability exists that even these small amounts may cause the nausea and dizziness. Additionally to it, the writer avoids giving the actual amount of the chemical. Perhaps he may consider that 1 gram is small amount but even 0,05 gram may cause the symptoms. Moreover, it is said that these suspected elements occur naturally in all canned foods but the amount of these chemicals from natural process is not said. For instance, each of these cans may have 2 gram of the chemicals but normally the amount of these elements, which is occurred naturally, should not be higher than 0,02 gram. In this case, the found elements may cause the symptoms and perhaps even possess health risk.

Consequently, the given information is insufficient to draw a thoughtful conclusion about the soundness of the argument. In conclusion, the arguer claims that returned cans possess no health risk; however, the evidence used to support this conclusion is weak and infirm, therefore the conclusion which is based on it is unwarranted as well.