Please critique this argument essay

[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.

 

[awells27]

1. Intro:   "implicit" or "underlying" probably works better than "subtle" when characterizing assumptions.  Also, since there is bias toward longer essays among the graders, you might list the underlying assumptions in your intro paragraph.  You can then say something such as, "To the degree these assumptions prove unwarranted, there will be a corresponding decrease in the validity of the pet food company's argument.  Now you have already established how your middle paragraphs will proceed.  Remember, you're not being graded according to how correct you are; you're graded according to how you evaluate an argument.  

 

2.  First assumption attack:  Make sure the end of your paragraph states something such as, "If the sample, upon further investigation, turns out large enough to be representative of the company's entire inventory, then the pet food company's argument merits further consideration."  In other words, allow for the argument, however faulty, to have a possibility of being plausible.  

 

3.  Second Assumption Attack:  This paragraph is strong.  

 

4.  Third assumption attack:  This is strong, but you'll improve by writing something such as, "If, however, the regulatory agency approving such chemicals has long been cited by veterinarians and chemists as the most reputable and reliable regulator of pet food products, then the company's argument grows stronger."  Once again, allow for conditions supporting the pet food company.  

 

5.  You need a fourth assumption attack, time permitting.  Four body paragraphs, if well written, work better than three.

 

6.  Your summary is good.  Here is an example of avoiding a state of being verb.  "isn't justified in " changes to "lacks justification for" .  This avoids the double negative of this sentence as well.  

 

Style:  Try as best you can, however, within the evil time constraints, to use as more active (rather than passive) verbs and action verbs (rather than state of being verbs).  "There are various subtle assumptions throughout the argument. If they aren't warranted," becomes "Various underlying assumptions guide the argument, and if they prove unwarranted, . . ."

 

 

You understand the assumption attack strategy very well.  Don't worry about repeating in your conclusion what you said in your intro.  As long as you rephrase it, hopefully the person grading you will sign off on a good grade because they are overworked anyway.  I would spend as much time as possible reading brief academic essays, just so good writing style sinks in.     

Edited October 19, 2013 by awells27

[clandry]

.  Remember, you're not being graded according to how correct you are; you're graded according to how you evaluate an argument.  

 

 

What is meant by this? Particularly, by 'correct'. 

[awells27]

What is meant by this? Particularly, by 'correct'. 

Some people get caught up in whether they are actually right respecting what they write.  That does not matter.  This section is about identifying implicit assumptions and demonstrating how they either support or debunk the argument.  The same holds true for the first section.  Whatever position you take, defend it well, identify how the opposition may sometimes be partially correct, and provide examples.  

[clandry]

Some people get caught up in whether they are actually right respecting what they write.  That does not matter.  This section is about identifying implicit assumptions and demonstrating how they either support or debunk the argument.  The same holds true for the first section.  Whatever position you take, defend it well, identify how the opposition may sometimes be partially correct, and provide examples.  

I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't identifying the implicit assumptions be the "right" way? 

In analyzing an argument, I thought the key goal is to locate and dissect the assumptions and discuss why these are warranted. Aren't all implicit assumptions supposed to support the argument? 

Edited October 19, 2013 by doubled

[awells27]

Yes, there is a correct way to evaluate an argument, but the argument or assumptions can never legitimately be proven as correct.  The scenarios are too vague and, to put it bluntly, stupid.  A simple way to summarize the assumptions is that further research is required to determine their validity.  We are basically arguing the same thing from different directions.

 

In the analyze an issue section, however, what I'm saying is clearly important.  My essay prompt was that the main goal of history is to teach leaders that people are basically the same in both past and present.  This is a ludicrous prompt, and no one will truly know if people are more the sameor more different.  SO I simply said that in some instances people are the same and in some instances they are different.  I gave two paragraphs for each position.  It does not matter that my argument was legit, but only that I critically engaged with the topic with positions and examples.  I try to offer ideas like "social control," centralization of power, gender bias, etc - all legit concerns - since I assume that most professors lean left.  This was a dangerous gamble on my part, but it paid off.