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.
The argument discusses about cow flu and how many lifes can be saved with inoculations against cow flu. The argument also gives infromation about deaths basesd on the inoculatons and concludes inoclations can not be permitted against cow flu. But it has gaps about the conclusion. I discuss these gaps in the next paragraphs.
Firstly, the argument does not quantify how many people or what percent of people were dead due to the inoculations. Even if we have data related to the deaths, we do not have information about how many of the deaths are genuinely due to the inoculation. It can also happen that people might have died due to different reasons, the primary reason might not be the inoculation. So we need more details about the circumstances of the deaths and the quantification of deaths. However, even if there are some deaths caused due to the inoculation, we need to weigh the deaths verses the lifes it can save.
Secondly, The argument says many lifes "might be" saved. This statement also does not provide any statistics to deal with. What if the number of lifes can be saved are far less than the inoculations can actually cause. In that case, we are dealing with a situations opposite to what the previous paragraph is build upon. Also if there are many lives are saved, how did we come to the conclusion needs to be provided too.
So the argument needs to provide the details of howmany and how people can be saved if inoculation against the cow flu is adminstered. And needs to provide the fatalities caused and the circumstances as well. Unless we have these statistics we cannot conclude that the inoculatios againse cow flu can not be adminstered.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 291 350
No. of Characters: 1351 1500
No. of Different Words: 129 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.13 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.643 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 81 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 61 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 43 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.635 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.179 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 332, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...t the previous paragraph is build upon. Also if there are many lives are saved, how ...
^^^^
Line 15, column 210, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Unless” 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 caused and the circumstances as well. Unless we have these statistics we cannot conc...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1409.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 291.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84192439863 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77790365913 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 204.123752495 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460481099656 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 449.1 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.3964576337 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 82.8823529412 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1176470588 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.47058823529 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247581060295 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0846116053065 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069873491712 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163083912438 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0265255266398 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.3799401198 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 98.500998004 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => 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.