"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eightmillion 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 fromPromofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamedfor causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists didfind that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods."
The author in the business magazine states that Promofoods recalled eight million cans of Promofood tuna. This is as a result of numerous complaints of dizziness and nausea on the part of consumers of Promofoods tuna. The company made a conclusion that the canned tuna did not pose a health risk afterall following series of tests. However, before this recommendation can be accepted, three questions must be answered.
First of all, why didn’t chemists from an independent body test the recalled cans? Testing in general is supposed to give an unbiased view of a product and also remove any element of doubt for a result that will be obtained. In the passage, testing was conducted by staff of Promofoods. These staff have an air of bias around them and would obviously conduct tests to protect the reputation of their employers. The chemist might have been threatened with the loss of their jobs should they bring out reports which would be harmful to that of the company. With this kind of testing, the authenticity of the test results is hugely doubted and the test result does not have merit. An independent body needs to undertake the tests on the recalled cans to clear any element of doubt.
Secondly, why were tests conducted on only 8 food chemicals commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea? The passage infers that the chemicals that causes dizziness and nausea are more than the 8 chemicals tested by the chemists. The possibility of the dizziness and nausea suffered by consumers could have been as a result of the presence of other chemicals which were not tested. All factors including negligible ones should be factored when testing, however, this wasn’t done by the chemists. They ignored other factors which could have provided a far conclusive result. This in effects makes the conclusion by Promofood that the tuna doesn’t pose a health risk not compelling enough.
Finally, what is the source of data for the chemists claim that the 3 chemicals present in the are not health risks? The chemists made the statements which providing evidence to back their claims. This cannot be accepted because this is a health hazard we are talking off. Customers lives cannot be put at the mercy of assumptions without proof. This statement also doesn’t provide a strong case to accept the conclusion made by the company.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is currently flawed due to several factors doubting the authenticity of the results. Until the author is able to answer the questions raised in the argument (in the form of conducting independent tests, testing all other chemicals likely to be present and providing data to support his claims), then the conclusion by Promofoods should not be accepted.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-10 | Fortune Quarshie | 58 | view |
- As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea Promofoods requested that eightmillion 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 58
- In order to become well rounded individuals all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry novels mythology and other types of imaginative literature 50
- Educators should find out what students want included in the curriculum and then offer it to them 83
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 68
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 465 350
No. of Characters: 2240 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.644 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.817 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.576 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.921 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 297, Rule ID: AFTERALL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'after all'?
Suggestion: after all
... canned tuna did not pose a health risk afterall following series of tests. However, bef...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 699, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'need'?
Suggestion: need
...oes not have merit. An independent body needs to undertake the tests on the recalled ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 92, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...s claim that the 3 chemicals present in the are not health risks? The chemists made the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, in general, kind of, talking of, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => 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: 2304.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 461.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9978308026 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64467422183 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492407809111 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.3742504338 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.0 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2083333333 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.38548145177 0.218282227539 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108395065736 0.0743258471296 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0901839829452 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216048418227 0.128457276422 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132783840431 0.0628817314937 211% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => 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: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.