Exam approaching...please review argument.

[keenkriti]

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.


The conclusion on which Promofood arrived may seen convincing at first instance. Since, the tuna cans were returned and tested in a large quantity and the particular responsible elements were not found in them. But numerous assumptions are made by chemists before jumping on this decision. Analyzing the argument with every possible perspective several questions may arise in the mind of consumers and food verification authorities.
Let us look out for some of the unanswered questions in the passage.

Firstly, it appear that chemists solely consider the fact that each chemical separately cause dizziness and nausea. It is clearly stated that three out of eight chemicals are still present in tuna cans. Now it is possible that the combination of these three chemicals with others may cause putrid effects. There may be some chemical which occur only in tuna cans but not in others, so the three chemicals do not have a harmful impact in those canned food.

Secondly, geographic locations and climatic conditions may also substantiate the complaints of dizziness and nausea among certain group of people. Conclusion does not consider any statistical data or surveys from the gentry of different locations of people.
It is also possible that certain chemicals which are present in cans may react with water after consumption and produce varied results in varied locations. Argument does not provides any information about the other canned foods which contain the same three chemicals, whether they also produce these results or some different health results. Time for which the Tuna cans are kept open at consumer’s place may also cause related problems.

Lastly, Promofoods have not considered the fact that the location of catching tuna fishes or the water of the fishery may be contaminated. Minerals in water may also cause absurd results in fishes and then subsequent consumption of the same lot of Tuna fishes may result in dizziness and nausea in consumers.

Therefore including all these reasons and answers to the above questions may make the argument more convincing and easy to accept. Although the conclusion stated by Promofoods may be correct, but this will definitely arouse questions and demands from the consumers. So to avoid this situation more statistical data and surveys should be included in the argument.