The following appeared in a business magazine. "As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea, Promofoods requested that eight

"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."

Author failed to support the fact that "Whether Promofood's conclusion about chemical contents in tuna accepted by consumers". Argument is very doggerel and exacts profound analysis and report". Against consumer complaint Promofoods recalled the tuna but testing with company chemists and conclusions based on their report without the intervention of independent comity is not feasible.

First of all, Promofoods recalled the tuna in order to ensure that "It doesn't contain chemicals which causes dizziness and nausea".From the customer point of view company should act fair enough get the recalled samples examined by third independent party for its quality and genuineness.Paragraph exegesis that Chemists of Promofoods only tested cans for five out of eight dizzying and nausea causing chemicals. it doesn't say anything about accuracy of test and reports.So in front of an independent body cans should be examined and report should be generated.By doing so consumers trust fairness of tests.

Secondly, chemists examined for five out of eight chemicals and claim that "balance three present in all other kinds of canned foods. Passages lags to brief about which "other kinds of canned products ". Do those canned foods are healthier and don't cause dizziness and nausea. Passage should support statement with one or two examples of products which contain other three chemicals. And also should support the fact that even though "other food" contain chemicals causing dizziness and nausea, they are no complaints from consumers about their usage.

Finally, Passage doesn't say about quantity of chemical present in cans. They have tested for five chemicals and claim that "Cans are free from five out of eight chemicals causing dizziness and nausea". Now question arises about balance three. Passage says " Other kind of canned food contains these three chemicals".There is no sentence about what quantity of chemical content doesn't cause dizziness and nausea. Product may contain chemical more than minimal amount and may cause dizziness. So There should be strong reasons to support argument.