swiftie

I wrote the essay in 30 minutes time limit. Please review it. Prompt: 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. Essay: There are various subtle assumptions throughout the argument. If they aren't warranted, then the company should not shy away from devoting further resources to the investigation. It is stated that the company tested "samples from the recalled food." However, there is no hint as to how those samples were chosen and if they really are representative. The way samples are chosen can possibly skew the results of the tests. At least, the company should have tested samples of the food packets recalled from people made the complaints. It can be true that only those packets were contaminated but did not get tested because they weren't included in the sample. Even if the samples were representative, there is a flaw in testing process. The chemicals that were found in the samples are individually approved. No information is given about whether a combination of those chemicals can be safely consumed by pets. Often, two chemicals which are safe for consumption alone react together in the body in a way that makes their consumption together unsafe. Individual chemicals being approved is a necessary but not sufficient condition for assuring that they are indeed safe. Moreover, there is no mention of which agency approved those chemicals and whether that agency was competent. Maybe, the agency did not test chemicals diligently. Their approval process cannot be trusted until it has been verified to produce accurate results independently. To improve the argument, the company should assure that the samples taken were in fact representative, the chemicals in the food were safe in the particular combination they were in that food and that the agency that approved the chemicals is competent. Otherwise, the company isn't justified in not devoting further resources to the investigation.

I wrote another essay! I realize that even this time, my essay could have been improved a lot if I had more than 30 minutes. I am pasting my essay as it is without improving it. I will be really grateful if you could comment on it. Thanks a lot in advance. Prompt: The physical differences in men and women make women inherently less suited for most tasks. My Essay: Men and women might have physical differences, but that does not make women inherently less suited for most tasks. Women have been historically denied many work opportunities and rights, either by enforcing sexist policies or discriminating against them in the hiring process. After seeing women achieve success in various fields, we should no longer think of them as less capable. Although, the reasoning behind thinking that women have less physical strength is suspect, traditionally that contention has been used to deny them opportunities. But, in the modern era, most of the menial work has been automated and performed by machines. The most demanding fields today like management and software development do not require any physical work. And, women have shown that they can perform as well, if not better, than their male counterparts in such fields. Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo Inc, is one such woman. After graduating summa cum laude from Stanford University, the incredibly talented and intelligent Marissa joined Google. Her contributions were a major factor in Google's stupendous growth and when she left, she was the Vice President of Product Design. She was chosen over Ross Levinson for the job of chief executive of Yahoo and is currently helping Yahoo regain its old momentum. There isn't a dearth of such examples of ultra-successful women. Christine Lagarde, the director of IMF and Hillary Clinton, who recently resigned as Secretary of State of the United States come immediately to mind. However, women have also proved their mettle in lower positions. A common objection that prevails even now is that women have less strength and thus cannot work in manufacturing and the army. The US army recently approved women's joining the infantry showing that they do not doubt their capacity even in jobs requiring strength. That should put to rest most people's objections. However, even if one continues to believe that women have less strength, that is not sufficient to stop them from working in most of the jobs, as they don't require such brute strength. Another objection is that women require maternity leave. Although, women might need to take a leave off while they are pregnant, that doesn't make them less suitable at any task. Not hiring bright women for jobs, just because they might have to take a leave, if they decide to bear a child, seems irrational for most fields. However, there might be companies involved in specialized work in which such leaves might be untenable, and it might suit their purpose to prefer men or women which do not plan on bearing a child. As discussed above, most of the objections don't apply to most of the fields. In most situations, women and men are equally suited to the task. Moreover, women have excelled in many fields and shown that they can work as well as men.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! This was my first essay and found myself hurrying up in the last 10 minutes. I'll try with other prompts too.

I wrote this essay in a 30 minutes while attempting Manhattan Practice Test. Please grade it or comment on it. I can grade your essay in return. Prompt: 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 with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above. Essay: Teaching a foundation of logical reasoning is necessary to ensure that people behave morally. A person who lacks the ability to reason logically cannot be depended upon to do the morally right thing, even if his intentions are good. Advances in psychology tell us that humans aren't perfectly rational agents. Aside from committing what are called logical fallacies in reasoning, they are also prone to cognitive biases. Only a person who is well aware of them can be expected to reason correctly. An introductory course in logic includes learning about syllogisms, deductive and inductive arguments, what it means for a deductive argument to be logically valid or sound, and common fallacies. An "ad hominem" attack is an example of fallacy that is not uncommon. It occurs when a person tries to invalidate an argument by discrediting the person who made the argument. It is true that pondering over this can make someone who hasn't taken a logic class realize that there's something wrong with ad hominem. But, there are too many forms of bad arguments and one cannot be relied upon to independently discover all of them or even try to do so. Moreover, cognitive biases like confirmation bias (the tendency to neglect evidence against your position) worsen the situation. Why care so much about logical reasoning in order to produce a moral society? Because what a foundation of morality can teach are basic moral values, like the Golden Rule or do not harm others unnecessarily. In practical situations, what to do must be decided by making arguments where those moral values serve as premises. The various moral systems e.g. deontology and consequentialism utilize this. One form of consequentialism, utilitarianism requires a person to do a cost-benefit analysis of each action he does. If the costs of an action outweigh the benefits, a utilitarian will decide against going through with it. On the other hand, as has been witnessed by humanity, fundamentalists commit atrocities while thinking that they are behaving morally and according to God's instructions. Basic logic, if taught to them, can have gone a long deal to make them realize that their actions aren't really moral. So, I would advocate teaching logical reasoning over morality itself as the basic moral values, if they are to be adopted by a person, are intuitive, thanks to evolution.