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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author suggests that due to the slight possibility of death from inoculation, routine inoculations against cow flu shouldn't be practiced. However, this suggestion suffers from a lack of evidence to stregthen its take on this matter. If the following evidences can be provided the suggestion might redeem itself and heavy consideration of its conclusion wouldn't be refuted.
Firstly, there is a need for empirical evidence that routinely administering these inoculations to fight cow flu would save lives at rates that would please people in these areas where the disease might be detcted. The prompt assumes live "might" be saved, but, we cannot be risking lives for the possibility we "might" save them. It is imperative that quantitative evidence is provided to ensure there lies a high conversion rate in the number of saved lives. If such evidence cannot be provided the siggestion fails to be of significant value.
Moreover, there is a need for provision of the ratio of lives lost due to inoculation to that of lives saved from routine inoculation. The prompt fails to provide such evidence and adds another achilles heel to its take on the matter. If these two values can be juxtaposed then reasonable conclusions can bemade as this is an essential piece of information in resolving this dillema. The provision of these values can determine the impact of this suggestion. It would also prove if, truly, the routine inoculation is worth the risk.
Lastly, the premise for this suggestion lie on the very fact that there is a possible occurence of death as a result from these inculations. It, however, fails to provide evidence regarding how small or large that "small" possibility is. This is evidence that can make or break this recommendation yet it is provided in such ambiguity. It is unacceptable that such an equivocal sugesstion be considered.
In providing evidence to its premise, the recommendation would strengthen its argument. As it fails to do so, this suggestion is unadmissable till further details are provided.
The above suggestion is rife with holes due to an inadequacy in the provided evidences for its conclusion. It makes an assumption based on an ambiguous premise and also fails to provide empirical evidence on matters concerning human life. Such attitude towards ahelth related topiic is unacceptabl. If the aforementioned evidences can be provided the recommendation would stregthen its position. Till those evidnces are provided this suggestion does not hold water.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 2056 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.052 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.95 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.054 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.054 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...n, routine inoculations against cow flu shouldnt be practiced. However, this suggestion ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 358, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...d heavy consideration of its conclusion wouldnt be refuted. Firstly, there is a ne...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 482, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...sion rate in the number of saved lives. If such evidence cannot be provided the si...
^^
Line 19, column 300, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s ahelth related topiic is unacceptabl. If the aforementioned evidences can be pro...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, so, then, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2155.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32098765432 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17350331721 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479012345679 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.019627227 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6956521739 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6086956522 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91304347826 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188364703343 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0558778518872 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0736204941234 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102062083319 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098364600685 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => 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: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => 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.