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 presents for the case of a pet food company to stop investigating its product, which has resulted, post consumption by its intended consumers (i.e. the pets) in undesirable symptoms such as vomiting, lethargy and other signs of illness. The argument assumes that the pet food is safe given that the clinical investigations indicated of its chemical safety and further assumes the product to be innocously marketable. This argument, though may appear logical at first glance, is unfortunately not as sound as it appears.
Firstly, the argument indicates that only 4 million pounds of pet food was recalled, and assumes that the samples for these 4 millions pounds of pet food were subjected to safety testing. However, we don't have the data about the overall production by the company, which may exceed 4 million pounds of pet food, neither are we presented with the data on the global distribution of the product. Thus, there is always a likelihood that the samples withdrawn formed the safe pool of pet food, while the unsafe food or the pet food that resulted in such symptoms was never taken for testing. Hence, the argument essentially needs to indicate whether the 4 million pounds of food recalled covered the areas where the pets experienced illness. Unless we are not armed with this assumption, the argument to consider the food is safe doesn't hold its ground.
Secondly, a flaw that the argument fails to address is the biological versus the chemical safety. This refers to failure of the argument in indicating whether the food which was considered chemically safe is also biologically safe. Despite the approval for use in pet food, an ingredient can't be considered to be salubrious unless it is tested on a large cohort of animals for whom it is intended. What may be safe for humans may not be so for animals. Thus it is essential to understand how the company defines food safety, and whether its safety parameters are flawed.
Thirdly, the argument speaks of pets but doesn't indicate the type pf pets. Every organism is different, so what may be consumable by one specie may turn deadly for the other specie. Thus, the argument fails to provide data on the type of animals, the pet food is intended for, as a result of which, it wouldn't be suitable to comment of the safety of the pet food. A very simple example is the case of herbivorous pets which subsist on vegetarian diets and mostly bear the enzyme cellulase needed for breakdown for plant food. If such food is consumed by non-herbivorous animals, it may result in symptoms as indicated by argument because the vegetarian diet is not exactly suitable for non-herbivores. This brings us to question the possibility that the company may not be labeling the food correctly and thus, despite the ingredients turning out to be safe for consumption, are making the pets sick. Hence, the argument lacks the evidence of the kind of pets for whom the food is intended. The ambiguity of the term pet food makes the argument for its its safety, not very strong.
Therefore, the argument presented to us is marred by logical issues which require to be addresses before we can conclusively assume that the food is safe for consumption by bets. Unless we can address the concerns, it wouldn't be recommendable for the company to stop its investigation for food safety, because it would damage the company's credibility in terms of food safety in the pet food market.
| 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 |
- 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 74
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and the environment in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make 66
- Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns 83
- 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 66
- 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 29
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track. Here goes a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/pet-food-company-r…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: ? Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 592 350
No. of Characters: 2794 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.933 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.72 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.665 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.739 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.466 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 201, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ubjected to safety testing. However, we dont have the data about the overall product...
^^^^
Line 3, column 826, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e argument to consider the food is safe doesnt hold its ground. Secondly, a flaw th...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 289, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...oval for use in pet food, an ingredient cant be considered to be salubrious unless i...
^^^^
Line 5, column 454, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e for humans may not be so for animals. Thus it is essential to understand how the c...
^^^^
Line 7, column 42, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hirdly, the argument speaks of pets but doesnt indicate the type pf pets. Every organi...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 303, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... intended for, as a result of which, it wouldnt be suitable to comment of the safety of...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1050, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: its
...he term pet food makes the argument for its its safety, not very strong. Therefore, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 219, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... Unless we can address the concerns, it wouldnt be recommendable for the company to sto...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, while, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2863.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 587.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87734241908 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9222030514 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72854836637 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427597955707 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 900.0 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3698982932 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.47826087 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5217391304 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.21739130435 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.404393893672 0.218282227539 185% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154943528977 0.0743258471296 208% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11073987256 0.0701772020484 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.273753653654 0.128457276422 213% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0969685941209 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.