Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.
In this argument, the author claims that inoculations against cow flu might save people in the affected area. In contrary to this argument, the author further claims that there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of this inoculations against cow flu. To support this point of view, the author has suggested not to let these inoculations against cow flu. Though the underlying reasons sounds good and reasonable, because of lack of evidence, unaddressed assumptions, and vague terminology, the authors' argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
First and foremost, the author cities about the areas where the cow flu was detected. Author has nowhere mentioned about the method of detection of cow flu. Furthermore, if there a detection method, the author did not mention about the correctness of the method of detecting the cow flu. In a nutshell, the claim of author is flawed due to uncertainty in reliability of the method of detecting cow flu.
Secondly, even though if the disease is assumed to be detected in certain area, the author is still uncertain about the inoculation against cow flu. The argument claims that the inoculation might save the people. Without checking the reliability of these inoculations, commenting on saving lives is completely absurd.
Contrary, the argument later claims about the possibility that due to these inoculations, a person might die. Hence, he further argued that inoculations against cow flu cannot be permitted. He citied here about the small possibility of person dying. Again the question comes here is checking the correctness of inoculations. The author cannot comment on this without actually knowing the outcomes of these inoculations against cow flu. These inoculations must be tested beforehand and the author should mention about the exact possibility, i.e in terms of mathematical number, to check the reliability on these inoculations.
Hence, the argument lacks the thorough analysis and reliable statistics. The author should have investigated about the real possibility of a person dying from these inoculations. Furthermore, he should also look into the chances of saving the life from these inoculations. Finally, he has mentioned the term routinely administered everywhere in the argument, he should have further elucidated this term.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 366 350
No. of Characters: 1910 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.374 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.219 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.942 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.884 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 239, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...y that a person will die as a result of this inoculations against cow flu. To suppor...
^^^^
Line 1, column 516, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...assumptions, and vague terminology, the authors argument is unsubstantiated and deeply ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, look, second, secondly, so, still, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1971.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03211063075 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.427397260274 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 616.5 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.2144608959 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.8571428571 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.380952381 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307628340658 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112449096639 0.0743258471296 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751161574972 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187171196116 0.128457276422 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0682287120854 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.