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 food and determined that all chemicals found in the food were chemicals that are approved for use in pet food. Thus, the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, and the company should not devote further resources to the investigation.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument claims here that, as the chemical elements found in the pet food are approved chemicals for pet food, so no more resourses should be devoted to examine further why the illness is occuring. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention some key feature, on the basis of which it could have been evaluated. To support the claim, the argument reasons that , as only approved chemical were used in making the food, the food company is not responsible for the situation. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that there is little credible support to the argument's claim. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete and unsustainable.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that as they are using approved set of chemicals, their amalgam should also be an approved chemical. This is merely an assumption without much solid ground. To illustrate, there are many chemicals which are beneficial to health. But when that kind of a chemical is mixed with another harmless chemical, sometimes they can produce some deathly chemical. Hence, it would been more convincing if the author explicitly stated that, the amalgam of those chemicals is also an approved chemical.
Again, the argument points out that as test lab finds only those approvedf chemicals, they should not inquiry moire. This is another weak and unsupported claim that does not demonstrate any clear correlation between the validity of test and decision of not tesing further. For example, the instruments can be outdated or faulty. So, if the author have proved with evidence that all the lab instruments are tested and are up to date it would have been much more convincing.
In addition to some pore reasoning, the conclusion raises some skeptical questions. Do enough amount of supplies were tested? Were the samples from the sick pets collected? Are test material functioning correctly? Without answering these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claim is just wishful thinking of the argument rather than substantive evidence.
Finally, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster further, the argument should have mentioned some statistic data to support his conclusion. Without them, this argument is weak.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-14 | srujanakeerthi | 49 | view |
| 2019-12-03 | Opak Pulu | 65 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | farhadmoqimi | 29 | view |
| 2019-11-05 | Prudhvi6054 | 63 | view |
| 2019-11-03 | solankis304 | 29 | view |
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.“Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the co 59
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re 66
- Question : Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.Rembrandt is the most famous of the seventeenth-century Dutch painters. However, there are doubts whether some pa 3
- “A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.”Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the pos 54
- This topic raises the controversial issue of whether all the students of a nation should be obliged to take the same national curriculum untill they colege or not Indisputably by requring all the students to take the same curriculum the colleges can set a 57
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 359 350
No. of Characters: 1823 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.353 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.078 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.571 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.318 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.298 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.288 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 370, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ort the claim, the argument reasons that , as only approved chemical were used in ...
^^
Line 5, column 282, Rule ID: KIND_OF_A[1]
Message: Don't include 'a' after a classification term. Use simply 'kind of'.
Suggestion: kind of
...are beneficial to health. But when that kind of a chemical is mixed with another harmless...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
... some deathly chemical. Hence, it would been more convincing if the author explicitl...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, so, for example, in addition, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1892.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 359.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27019498607 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67973648972 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545961002786 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 581.4 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.3240106444 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.0 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3181818182 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123500588711 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0345952672295 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0728847665883 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0621236734997 0.128457276422 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757980944647 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.