"As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year. Promotoods concluded that the cans did not, after all, contain chemicals that posed a health risk This conclusion is based on the fact that the chemists from Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans and found that, of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea, five were not found in any of the tested cans. The chemists did find that the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all other kinds of canned foods"
The author presents the case of Promofoods where the company is claiming that their canned food does not contain the chemicals due to which the customers are complaining about dizziness and nausea based on the fact that the contents in the cans tested negative for 5 out the 8 chemicals that their chemists thought causes nausea. This conclusion of the author is extremely flawed as it does not contain the evidence necessary to support his conclusion.
The author tries to support his claim that the dizziness and nausea is not caused by the canned tuna of Promofoods by stating that 8 million cans were requested to be returned for testing of the chemicals. This although is a statistical data, it does not provide enough information as to conclude that a sample set of 8 million cans for testing was large enough or not. It completely depends on how many cans the company produces daily or monthly and if only particular batch of the tuna cans caused the complaints. Also, it is not known if the cans acquired by the company were from the same area where the complaints came from and hence it cannot be deduced that these were the cans that gave rise to the complaints.
Secondly, the author states that the chemists at Promofoods tested for the 8 commonly known chemicals that caused nausea and diziness. There is a high possibility that the dizziness and nausea is caused because of other chemicals that are present in the can of tuna but were not checked by the chemists.
The author also states that the chemists at Promofoods concluded that the chemicals in the tuna do not pose a health risk because the sample tested negative for 5 out of 8 chemicals that they knew commonly caused dizziness and nausea. However, it is quite plausible that the contents of the tuna can reacted with the remaining 3 chemicals and these 3 are the ones that actually pose a threat and are responsible for the complaints.
Hence the authors conclusion is based on fallacious and erronious assumptions. There is no concrete evidence that is present that the author provides that bolsters his claim that the canned tuna of Promofoods is not causing that nausea and dizziness.
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a listener supported public radio station For the past year as part of an effort to broaden our supporter base our Folk on the Air program has allocated less time to traditional American folk musi 75
- Learning for learning s sake is an outdated concept Today education must serve an ulterior purpose and be directed towards clear goals 54
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 70
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current tren 58
- Since Herald s Hardware began advertising on the radio its revenues have increased by 13 This is obvious evidence that advertising on the radio will make your business more profitable Write a response in which you discuss the soundness of the author s cla 73
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1768 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.715 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.189 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.422 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.682 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 459, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ny produces daily or monthly and if only particular batch of the tuna cans caused...
^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...re responsible for the complaints. Hence the authors conclusion is based on fall...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 11, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ible for the complaints. Hence the authors conclusion is based on fallacious and e...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 66, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ion is based on fallacious and erronious assumptions. There is no concrete eviden...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1808.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82133333333 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5896807182 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.405333333333 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 547.2 705.55239521 78% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.4310327747 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.666666667 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.25 23.324526521 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.38344158875 0.218282227539 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154578846441 0.0743258471296 208% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876992560075 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.224724127148 0.128457276422 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0752960925052 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.47 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.27 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.