GRE Argument Essay 4
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. Promofoods 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.
This argument is based on the complaints of nausea and dizziness from the consumers who have used canned tuna. Although Promofoods had recalled eight million cans of tuna and also some samples of tuna to lab for testing, it concluded that the cans did not contain any chemical, which can cause any health hazard.
The results of the tests done by chemists from Promofoods do not hold any ground, as these results are not supported by any strong evidence. As per the chemists from Promofoods, there are eight chemicals responsible for dizziness and nausea and five of them were not present in the tested cans of tuna. However, they have not considered the possibility that certain chemicals in contact with other chemicals can also cause dizziness and nausea. The results of this testing can also be biased as the testing has been done only on a few samples. Hence, it cannot be said that five chemicals not present in the tested samples were not present in the cans consumed by the affected buyers. Promofoods should have collected the cans from where tuna was consumed and that caused health risk for many people. It might be possible that those cans contained these chemicals. When it comes to testing, you cannot generalize the results.
According to Promofoods, five suspected chemicals were not present in the tested samples and the other three are present in the other canned foods and do not cause any bad effect. However, this is again without any strong evidence. It is just an assumption that the chemicals, which do not cause any bad effect in one canned food, will not cause any ill effect in canned tuna. It might be possible that one of these chemicals causes health risk when exposed to some specific chemical present in tuna. Hence, it is not right to say in general that tuna cans were not responsible for the symptoms of dizziness and nausea. It can be said the whole conclusion of Promofoods is based on weak evidence. The results of the tests done by the chemists are not very convincing.
Promofoods should have done tests on a large number of canned tuna. It should have gathered more results to make its study more convincing. However, it cannot be said that the study done by Promofoods is baseless. It is entirely possible that there are some other chemicals, which are responsible for the symptoms of nausea and dizziness and it is not found yet. Promofoods should also take this possibility into account.
In the end, it can be said that the entire study of this argument is based on assumption that the eight chemicals responsible for nausea and dizziness were not present in the tuna cans. This is an important study and Promofoods should work on providing stronger evidence. They have to prove that there was no biased sampling and the testing was correct. The chemists have to prove that the three chemicals, which are normally found in other canned foods, do not cause any harmful effect in tuna.