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 belives that inoculations against cow flu should not be permitted as they have a possiblity that the person administered with it, might die.However, This argument rests on several ungrounded premises which should be addressed with sound evidences so that the argument can be evaluated, and any action can be taken.
First of all, the author needs to provide evidence that only the cow inoculation has this risk of the person dying associated with it. It might be the case that the small risk of death associated is same as the case with most of the inoculations and flu's. Morever, it is possible that the risk for the cow inoculation might smaller or equal to most other inoculations like horse flu or chicken flu, which may be approved by the government and sucessfully deployed in the market. If that might be the case, The author needs to provide evidence regarding the risk and associated with the medication compared to rest of the similar medication in the market.
Second of all, the author needs to provide grounds for the vaguely defined administration routine for the medication. It might be the case that the routine required for different stages of the flu might be different. These different stages might require different and less frequent administration, which might result in a insignificant possibility of death from administration of the cow flu innoculation. Further, the author has not shed light on the possibility. It might be the case that the possiblity is so small say, 0.00000001, that it can almost be treated as a outlier or an anomaly in the distribution of data which was analyzed. If the above is true, the author needs to validate his claim with more evidence regarding the administration frequency and the quantitative and qualitative assesment of the risk associated with the administration of the cow flu inoculation, or else his argument would not hold water.
Moreover, the author needs to provide information regarding the methods of assessment of this risk and how the certification and testing of the inoculation was carried out? . It is possible that the testing was not done by a authorized government body and hence might not be consistent with the standard procedures followed for other inoculations. It is also possible that the small probability was not calculated scientifically and was just declared as a failsafe by the manufactures of the drug, to protect them from legal obligations incase of an allergic reaction due to which someone could dies. If the above examples holds water, the author needs to provide evidence related to drug testing and probability calculation to support his claim, otherwise his argument falls apart.
In conlusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted premises, such as those mentiond above. These premises need to be addressed with evidences before the argument can be evaluated and further course of action can be decided.
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2436 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.982 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.943 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.562 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.219 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.601 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 152, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
... person administered with it, might die.However, This argument rests on several ungroun...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 321, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...t administration, which might result in a insignificant possibility of death from...
^
Line 9, column 569, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...00001, that it can almost be treated as a outlier or an anomaly in the distributi...
^
Line 13, column 174, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ing of the inoculation was carried out? . It is possible that the testing was not...
^
Line 13, column 224, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ssible that the testing was not done by a authorized government body and hence mi...
^
Line 13, column 538, Rule ID: INCASE_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in case of'?
Suggestion: in case of
... to protect them from legal obligations incase of an allergic reaction due to which someo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 596, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'die'
Suggestion: die
...gic reaction due to which someone could dies. If the above examples holds water, the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2501.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.125 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01098200003 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428278688525 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 789.3 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.6023988928 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.117647059 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7058823529 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.215264664592 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.079823428432 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0627125238597 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131318379684 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0644079569751 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.