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

Docile animals are very sensitive to food changes and environment changes.As these are animals they tend to be in the natural.A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response that the food that the pet animals consumed lead them to vomit and cause illness.Tests were done and the conclusion made that the food is safe as the food contains all the chemicals approved for use in pet food.The argument presented seems to be too overwhelming to be logically correct and needs to be evaluated on various fronts.

Firstly the company evaluated the chemicals and concluded that these chemicals are approved.But it did not state anything about the quantities of these chemicals that are approved and the quantity of the chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of pet food.Maybe a certain amount say 2 grams of a particular ingredient may be approved but the company may be using 4 grams or more.So the argument does not state anything about the quantities of the chemicals approved and the quantities of the chemical used in manufacturing.

Secondly it just says all the chemicals used are approved.It does not look up in the combination list as to what combinations of chemicals should not be used for what particular animals.There may be a possibility, in fact a very high possibility that a certain combination may work well for dogs but that same combination may not fare well for the cats.The argument at hand does not state that the pets that experienced illness were all dogs or cats or a mixture of all the pets for which the company manufactures food.

Thirdly the argument says it tested samples from the recalled food.Now how was the sampling done.Was it adequate enough to determine the culpable chemicals.The argument does not provide any data that displays the sampling was adequate enough.There could be chances that out of that 4 million only 50,000 would be erroneously produced and those may have escaped.

The argument states that the chemicals used were all approved. But what about the natural substances that were used in the manufacturing. The quality of these may be of lower grade or these may have pesticides on them while they were going in through the manufacturing process.It does not state anything about these.

Once the complete set of data is available which displays the quantities of the various chemicals, shows up a list of the chemicals which can be used in combination,the adequate sampling and also elucidates further on the nature of the natural substances used, if these are found to be correct then the company can adequately say that the food was not responsible for the illness but to claim it without looking into these flaws would be a bigger mistake.