"Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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 argument states that since there is a modicum of possibility of a person dying from the effect of inoculation, the authority can not permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. While a cursory view of this statement may acknowledge this as flawless, a close inspection reveals several flaws of the argument. To possess an indubitable conclusion, an argument should have several reasons, which this one fails to achieve.
Firstly, the administration has no data from which they can estimate the severity of the cow flu, thereby cannot reach a firm decision. For example, if almost 40 percent of villagers are afflicted with dengue fever, then the administration can do anything but be indifferent about the issue. They must take some serious measure to assuage the epidemic of the fever. Likewise, if there would exist any data about the previous deaths caused by the flu, then the administration could be
judicious about their steps. Such phlegmatic behavior from the administration without any corroboration is not welcomed after all. Above all, the argument would be strengthened, if the number of demise resulting from the flu was enumerated.
Secondly, the argument fails in the case of cost analysis of this inoculation project. If the cumulative cost of the whole project would be negligible comparing with the effects of the flu, it would be a facile task to implement. To illustrate, the vaccination of polio to per individual costs less than the after-treatment of a polio patient. In this case, if the flu is contagious, it would cause havoc in the village, thereby decimating the whole village. As a result, the cost of the treatment will be much higher than to promote a routined administration. So, the argument would be bolstered, if the cost analyses were included in their statement.
Thirdly, if not, the inoculation is routinedly controlled, may be one person will be inoculated more than once, which may cause side effects. However, the death of a person from inoculations can not be refuted completely, inoculation more than once can be precarious instead. Therefore, the administration should be aware of the inoculation to prevent aberrant death causes.
To encapsulate the whole, the argument falls short of many reasons for which the conclusion is vague, making it prone to debates.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 379 350
No. of Characters: 1901 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.412 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.016 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.972 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.878 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Judicious
...flu, then the administration could be judicious about their steps. Such phlegmatic beha...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, likewise, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, after all, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21635883905 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07814599549 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53562005277 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 630.0 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.9082989934 57.8364921388 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.052631579 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9473684211 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.68421052632 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224921567145 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697419589538 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0663539240326 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107829519102 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0418225773598 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.