Dear my friends
I am new member. I am giong to take GRE in less than 16 days.
Would you please help me by give your comment.

The following appeared in a business magazine.

"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."

Based on chemist conclusion, dizziness and nausea that consumers complaint of them, are not related to cans of tuna. They claimed cans didn’t contain chemical components that threaded health. However, there are some notable points that have been disregarded.

At first, the author said “ this conclusion is based on tested eight million samples of recalled cans and they found from eight chemical can cause disease five were not found in any of cans and the remaining are naturally in other cans”. Why they wanted to test eight million of cans? Is there any specific reason?. In addition, testing of eight million cans is not logical, because for reaching a reasonable conclusion, test of some number of cans, which randomly are chosen, is enough. Article didn’t show any evidence whether they really tested eight million cans or they only analyzed some of them.

Furthermore, the conclusion that has gained by chemist was sufficient? Were chemists specialized or they had enough experience in this field? The result is directly related to the health people so the accuracy of the conclusion is very important. For example, cans producer could pass the result to well-known institute or somewhere that people know it well. Aslo, they should have showed that promofoods chemist didn’t have any relation with cans producers. For instance, if they were friends, it was possible they exchanged recalled cans with safe or healthy cans. Therefore, they should have given consumers valid proofs.

Another point is disregarded is about the “suspected chemical” which is mentioned. If these chemical materials are naturally in all kind of cans, why the author said “Suspected”. Maybe these materials in others cans are natural, but the presence of them in tuna cans lead to some symptoms like dizziness due to the special interaction.

Finally, Not also consume tuna cans lead to dizziness and nausea, but also there are other factors could cause them. For example, some people cannot eat different food with each other, like vinegar and tuna cans, so they temper are not compatible with such kind of foods. In addition, there is possibility that they themselves be responsible for dizziness due to inconsiderable of keeping cans. For example, they didn’t keep cans in refrigerator or in a requestedl temperature

After all, it was better; promofoods gave relevant evidence and valid statistical data, before they announced that there were not dangerous chemicals in cans, so consumers accepted the result more easily.