Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

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 an

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 an aw7Ro
A pet food company had to recall four million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that the pets started showing symptoms, similar to illness after consuming the company's pet food. As a result, the company conducted a few tests on the samples of recalled pet food and concluded that the chemicals used in the pet food were approved for usage. Therefore, the company is of the opinion that the recalled food is not responsible for the pet's condition and it should not devote further resources to the investigation. The claim by the company looks legible, although, a closer look unearths a few possibilities that could call into question the company's claim about it's pet food. Firstly, the company states that they themselves conducted the tests on the recalled food samples. What if the company have published dubious results of the tests in order to clear its name of any wrong doing? What if the food samples indeed consisted of chemicals that were not authorized by the food department? This would mean that the sickness, portrayed by the pets were indeed due to the pet food, developed by the company. To ensure impartial results, the tests should be conducted by a neutral body. Secondly, even if we assume that the tests conducted were truly impartial, the statement does not specify the number of times these tests were conducted. What if the tests were conducted only once? What if a second test gives out results that highlight the use unsafe chemicals? Moreover, what if the testing equipment were faulty and they give out erroneous results? This could mean that the results published by the company are not credible, and extensive testing is necessary to categorically state if the pet food samples are safe or no. Lastly, the company fails to provide the metrics against which the results of the experiments were tested. What if the metrics that the company employees currently is outmoded? Hence, it could be possible that the chemicals, previously considered safe, are not safe anymore. This discrepancy in metrics could explain the reason behind the pet owners thinking that the pet food by the company is making their animals sick whereas the company refutes it. In sum, the evidence provided by the company is not categorical. As we have seen in the paragraphs above, multiple alternative possibilities cast a doubt on the company's claim regarding the safety of its products. Therefore, it is up to the company now to provide more convincing and irrefutable evidence to the pet-owners
A pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
had to recall four million pounds of pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
in response to complaints that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
pets
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
started
showing symptoms, similar to illness after consuming the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
company
's pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
. As a
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
result
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
a few
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
on the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
samples
of recalled pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
and concluded that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
chemicals
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
used
in the pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
were approved
for usage.
Therefore
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
is of the opinion that the recalled
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
is not responsible for the pet's condition and it should not devote
further
resources to the investigation. The claim by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
looks legible, although, a closer look unearths a few possibilities that could call into question the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
company
's claim about it's pet food.

Firstly
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
states that they themselves
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
on the recalled
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
samples
. What if the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
have published dubious
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
of the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
in order to
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
clear
its name of any
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:
wrong
doing? What if the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
samples
indeed
consisted of
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
chemicals
that were not authorized by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
department? This would mean that the sickness, portrayed by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
pets
were
indeed
due to the pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
, developed by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
. To ensure impartial
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
should be
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
by a neutral body.

Secondly
, even if we assume that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
were
truly
impartial, the statement does not specify the number of times these
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
were
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
. What if the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
tests
were
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
conducted
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
only
once? What if a second
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
test
gives out
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
that highlight the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
use
unsafe
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
chemicals
?
Moreover
, what if the testing equipment were
Use a comma before 'and' if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short).
faulty and
they give out erroneous
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
? This could mean that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
published by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
are not credible, and extensive testing is necessary to
categorically
state if the pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
samples
are safe or no.

Lastly
, the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
fails to provide the metrics against which the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
results
of the experiments were
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
tested
. What if the metrics that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
employees
currently
is outmoded
?
Hence
, it could be possible that the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
chemicals
, previously considered safe, are not safe anymore. This discrepancy in metrics could
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
explain
the reason behind the pet owners thinking that the pet
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
food
by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
is making their animals sick whereas the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
refutes it.

In sum, the evidence provided by the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
is not categorical. As we have
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
seen
in the paragraphs above, multiple alternative possibilities cast a doubt on the
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
company
's claim regarding the safety of its products.
Therefore
, it is up to the
You use this word too often, consider replacing it with
company
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :
now
to provide more convincing and irrefutable evidence to the pet-owners
What do you think?
  • This is funny writingFunny
  • I love this writingLove
  • This writing has blown my mindWow
  • It made me angryAngry
  • It made me sadSad

IELTS essay 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 an

Essay
  American English
5 paragraphs
420 words
6.0
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 5.5
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 5.5
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 6.5
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 6.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Recent posts





Get more results for topic:
  • 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 an