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 of the arguement has asserted that the routine administrations of inoculations against cow flu has a small possibility of death,therefore, it cannot be permitted. It is evident that the arguement is quite vague and evasive and lacks in presenting necessary information required to validate it completely.
Firstly, the major red light that serves as a warning is the phrase Many lives "might" be saved. If we consider that cow flu is indeed fatal and many people contact this flu easily, then the best solution is to administer the patient with medicine that will sure shot fight against the disease and promote healthy recovery. If the author can provide necessary evidence proving the potency of the regular inoculations, only then it makes sense to administer them routinely. To elaborate, if 10 out of 10,000 people show positive response of routine inoculation, it can be considered as inefficient against fighting cow flu. In such case, the inoculations does not produce efficacious results, one needs to look into alternate options to fight against cow flu.
The next important factor in this arguement is the lack specific data that mentions the fatality that may result from routine inoculations. For example, the routine inoculation for 1 week might be effective in fighting against the flu completely. Whereas, if the inoculation is given for a period of 20 years, it may result in death. It is also possible the only 1 out of 10,000,000 have a possibility of dying upon administering the inoculation regularly. If such is the case, the routine inoculations has neglibile chance of being fatal.
In summary, there are various factors such as potency of the inoculations, fatality rate, malignity of cow flu, which needs to be studied to validate the given arguement.
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 293 350
No. of Characters: 1462 1500
No. of Different Words: 156 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.137 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.99 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.866 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.109 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.923 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 139, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , therefore
...cow flu has a small possibility of death,therefore, it cannot be permitted. It is evident ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, look, may, so, then, therefore, whereas, for example, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1522.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 292.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21232876712 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09737508345 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537671232877 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5885542191 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.076923077 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4615384615 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.61538461538 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.341871490726 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115134310441 0.0743258471296 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659652738379 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189583898305 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615479571948 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.