The author concludes that recalled food was not responsible for the symptoms like vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness in pets by determining the chemicals found in the food were approved by the government. At first glance, it may seem convincing the author but, they're a lot of unwarranted assumptions and flaws in them. The study needs to reexamined due to some flaws in the conclusion.
Firstly, whether the same food that was complained is recalled food? The company to blame on other factors for vomiting and signs of illness it can show that by taking some samples which used chemicals as approved in their samples and tests them they will get positive results. By showing positive results they will blame on some other factors for not to lose companies reputation. So, the government should take samples from current market food and check whether chemicals are using as per approved.
Secondly, It says that chemicals in recalled food are the same as approved chemicals. They mentioned that all chemicals found in food were approved for use in pet food. But, there may be a chance that if the government approved to use 10 chemicals they may use only 7 chemicals. without mixing the rest of the chemicals product quality may vary it can form some other chemical reaction that may have the chance to affect the pets and leads to vomitings, lethargy, and others. So, they should examine whether every chemical is using in that food product or not. Also, they should check whether chemicals using or concentrated or diluted. Without proper research and analysis, we can't assume the company is not responsible for the illness.
Finally, Some chemicals when tested instantly can show positive results but usage from months can lead to negative results. even though approved chemicals are good for pet food, one should examine clearly whether these chemicals lose their value by passing days. Also, the chemicals which approved for pet food was biased for that company, if it is a favor to that company even though they are using cheap chemicals it shows analysis that they are using efficient chemicals.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can provide evidence and assumptions more accurately we can strengthen that recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms.
- Company management should conduct routine monitoring of all employee e-mail correspondence. Such monitoring will reduce the waste of resources such as time and system capacity, as well as protect the company from lawsuits.Write a response in which you di 58
- The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn 50
- Mass media and the internet have caused people’s attention spans to get shorter. However, the overall effect has been positive: while people are less able to focus on one thing, they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through lar 58
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain y 58
- 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 49
Essay evaluation report
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1951 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.914 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.524 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.419 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 274, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
... it may seem convincing the author but, theyre a lot of unwarranted assumptions and fl...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 280, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Without
...hemicals they may use only 7 chemicals. without mixing the rest of the chemicals produc...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 311, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chemicals'' or 'chemical's'?
Suggestion: chemicals'; chemical's
...emicals. without mixing the rest of the chemicals product quality may vary it can form so...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 679, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ithout proper research and analysis, we cant assume the company is not responsible f...
^^^^
Line 7, column 125, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Even
...om months can lead to negative results. even though approved chemicals are good for ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => 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: 2003.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 396.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05808080808 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46091344257 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60578041521 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449494949495 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.1186207413 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.421052632 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8421052632 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52631578947 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281727785858 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107362104646 0.0743258471296 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100420620302 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179732295951 0.128457276422 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0493855969574 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.