A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled foo

The above statement makes the argument that the recalled food consist of authorized chemicals and thus did not cause the listed symptoms. As it stands, the rigor of the given statement is weak because it fails to provide valid logic that can help elucidate or strengthen the presented argument.

The pet food company is falsely assuming that the environment of the test for the recalled food corresponds to that of the place where the product is consumed by the actual pets. If the illness was caused only when the pet food was eaten in a highly humid environment, the test conducted in controlled environment failed to capture the cause of the signs of illness. Therefore, the test company should guarantee the similarity of the test environment and the environment of the field, which is not suggested in the given argument.

Moreover, the pet food should also consider the chemicals contained in the product is also safe when it is amalgamated into a single product. It is only claimed in the argument that the individual chemicals were all approved ones but the arguer fails to examine the pastiche of those chemicals. Even consisted of innocuous chemicals, the mixture of those ingredients can have noxious effects on living creatures. For example, ozone is harmful to animals but is made of the same particles that construct oxygen. The company should analyze the final product as well as the individual chemicals.

Another logical hole that the argument possesses is that the food company is wrongly assuming the deleterious materials would last long enough until the recalled pet food arrives the company. Some of the chemicals decay exponentially or vaporous. Thus, the noxious materials that existed in the product could have existed until they were consumed by the pet and were gone when it arrived the pet food company.

The pet food company could be falsely accused of producing toxic pet food. However, the pet food company cannot be exculpated from the possibility of actually being the reason for the illness because the current argument is logically weak. There should be a further examination for the company to be fully innocent from the fault.