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 that the recalled pet food was not responsible for any of the signs of illness in pets is flawed. Apart from using vague and ambiguous terms, the author uses data from a limited sample to come to a conclusion. Furthermore, the argument focuses only on one possibility that could have caused illness in pets that had consumed the food.
To begin, the pet food company tested only a few samples from the recalled food. The sample size tested may not be enough to draw a conclusion that the food is free of harmful chemicals. Moreover, the data about who had approved the chemicals present has not been presented in the argument.
Also, the cause for vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness, experienced by pets that had consumed the pet food may not have been solely due to the chemicals in it. The pet food could have been adulterated with other harmful substances that caused illness in pets. There could have been other reasons, the food could have been old stock and hence, not fit for consumption.The argument is flawed because the author directly comes to a conclusion that the pet food was not responsible for these symptoms. He fails to mention if the food was edible.
Even if the recalled food was not responsible for these symptoms, the company should devote further resources to the investigation. Only then can we come to a conclusion about the quality of the pet food. Without further investigation, it is hard to prove that the recalled food was not responsible for illness in pets. Moreover, by investing resources for investigation, the company can win the goodwill of customers.
The argument can be strengthened if the author provided information regarding the absence of toxins in the recalled pet food. The argument can further be strengthened if the author had mentioned other possibilities that could have caused the pets to fall sick. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed.
| 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 |
- It is more important to keep your old friends than to make new friends. 66
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves.Examples of altruism 80
- READINGProfessors are normally found in university classrooms, offices, and libraries doing research and lecturing to their students. More and more, however, they also appear as guests on television news programs, giving expert commentary on the latest ev 83
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...tock and hence, not fit for consumption.The argument is flawed because the author d...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'apart from']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.233333333333 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.191666666667 0.15541462614 123% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0694444444444 0.0836205057962 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0638888888889 0.0520304965353 123% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0138888888889 0.0272364105082 51% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113888888889 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.075 0.0416121511921 180% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.75426025555 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0305555555556 0.026700313972 114% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.127777777778 0.113004496875 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0333333333333 0.0255425247493 131% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0166666666667 0.0127820249294 130% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1932.0 2731.13054187 71% => OK
No of words: 327.0 446.07635468 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.90825688073 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.318042813456 0.378187486979 84% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.256880733945 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.180428134557 0.208842608468 86% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.119266055046 0.135150697306 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75426025555 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 136.0 207.018472906 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.415902140673 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 41.0389860176 52.1807786196 79% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 19.2352941176 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.7297456823 57.7814097925 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.647058824 141.986410481 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2352941176 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.647058823529 0.724660767414 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 44.9233675121 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.56701030928 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.622723499932 0.441005458295 141% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.161725995824 0.135418324435 119% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0989241020004 0.0829849096947 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.652834938681 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.125867065867 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.311573665483 0.193483328276 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129513810763 0.0970749176394 133% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.505087406397 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0242200283559 0.0774707102158 31% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.47547538662 0.312017818177 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0518397652326 0.0698173142475 74% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.