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 claims that pet food company was wrongly accused in that their pet food caused signs of illness in animals. The argument is support by the claim that the pet food company tested the samples of recalled pet food and found no unapproved chemicals in it. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.

First of all, the argument assumes that all chemicals in the recalled pet food were tested to determine if they are approved for use in pet food or not. However, the argument fails to mention that these chemicals were all tested together and not one by one. For example, these chemicals can be approved for use independently but when they are put together they can produce an unexpected chemical reaction that might result is signs of illness in the animals. The argument could have been more clearer if it explicitly stated that all the chemicals were tested in tandem and that the whole produce itself is harmful and can be approved for use.

Second, the argument claims that the company had recalled 4 million pounds of pet food and took sample from these 4 million pounds. But what if there was some malicious factor that spoiled the portion of pet food that was already sold to clients. Perhaps, during the production of this portion something happened on the factory. Electricity could have switched off for a while causing pet food to deteriorate. Another reason, there could have been a transport collapse during the transportation of the pet food. Which caused it to be in closed vans on the heat for an extended period of time. Perhaps it was not about the ingredients in the pet food itself but about some third-party factors that could have influenced its quality. If the argument have provided the evidence that no other factors in production, or transportation, or storage influenced the quality of the pet food then it could have been more convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts like the influence of third-party factors or how harmful is the chemical formula of the final product. Without this information, the argument remains unclear and open to debate.