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. The conclusion is based on the fact that the chemist form
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 kinds of
canned foods.

The argument’s conclusion/justification to/of

unconvincing since it ignores several crucial assumptions.

The evidences in support of the argument above, does little to support the conclusion/decision

Ultimately, the argument might be strengthened by

The conclusion by Promofood that the eight million tuna cans that were tested did not contain
chemicals that posted a health risk to consumers is unconvincing since it ignores several crucial
assumptions.

To begin with, Promofoods tested samples from the eight million recalled cans however fails to
describe the actual sample size. The samples size is of importance to ensure that the test results are
valid and reliable, thus avoiding generalization. Furthermore, the way the samples were selected is not
explained. There’s no evidence to show that there isn’t any form of foul play in the selection process,
thus casting doubts that the results could in favor of Promofoods best interest.

Secondly, the argument is solely based on the testing done by a chemist. There isn’t any
comparison or consideration towards other forms of testing that might explain the numerous consumer
complaints of dizziness and nausea. Other aspects that could be explored are hygiene, storage facilities,
and the overall management of the product which could be jeopardized. The chemist also neglects
explaining details of the five chemicals that were found. What’s mentioned is a vague statement that
that the chemicals do not pose a health risk.

However, the argument does offer a comparison with other canned foods, stating that the other
three chemicals are common. The evidence to this claim is missing, thus based on this argument, do
other canned food cause the same health effects to consumers? Of which the argument doesn’t
consider.

Therefore, the evidences in support of the argument above does little to support Promofood’s
conclusion that the eight million tuna cans that were tested did not contain chemicals that posted a
health risk to consumers. Ultimately, the argument can be strengthened by being transparent with the
sample size and its selection procedures to portray reliability, exploring other aspects that may cause
the nausea and dizziness instead of just the testing by a chemist, and providing details into why other
canned food do not cause health risks even if the contain the similar three chemicals mentioned.
Assumptions:

1. Promofoods tested samples of the recalled cans

- Samples might not tell the whole story
- How many samples? Generalizing
2. What other tests?
- Other possible causes?
- Storage? Hygiene?
3. of the eight chemicals most commonly blamed for causing symptoms of dizziness and nausea,
five were not found in any of the tested cans
- What chemicals? How is a health risk defined? Effects could be different based on
individuals?

4. the three remaining suspected chemicals are naturally found in all kinds of canned foods.
- Does the other canned food cause the same effects?
- Pose health risk?