"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.
(I have presented the essay below with all the errors that I was not able to correct before the allowed 30 minutes)
In the prompt, the author stated that permissions shouldn't be given for routinely administered inoculations against cow flu. The writer came to this conclusion based on the fact that there is a probability that a person will die as a result of inoculations. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three pieces of evidence need to be presented and substantiated.
First of all, the writer presumes, without evidence that the probability of death due to the routine inoculation is not negligible. Perhaps, the possibility of death is one in a hundred thousand inoculations. It is also possible that the occurrence of death is peculiar to a very minute set of people who abhors such inoculation routinely. If either case is true, then the author's conclusion is intangible and significantly flawed.
Secondly, the author assumes that inoculations against cow flu can lead to death. They, however, may not be the case. There is a possibility that those who previously died after inoculation were nursing other ailments that went on to kill them and not the inoculation in itself. There is also a possibility that the overdose of the inoculation was the cause of death and not the inoculation in itself. If either of the above scenarios is true, then the author's argument of not permitting inoculation does not hold water.
Finally, even if it is true that inoculations result in death and that the probability of dying is not negligible, the author assumes that there is no other factor that could have led to the death of the people. Maybe the approach and the methodology used for the inoculating were what resulted in death. People could have been left in deep hunger before the inoculation was done. There is also a possibility that the stress of the inoculation enervated them, making them susceptible to other death-causing illness. If the above is true, then the author's recommendation is not convincing.
In conclusion, it is possible that not permitting routine inoculation will not result in death. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render the conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. If the author can provide additional evidence, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the proposed recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1881 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.003 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.033 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.779 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 51, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...mpt, the author stated that permissions shouldnt be given for routinely administered ino...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 374, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...inely. If either case is true, then the authors conclusion is intangible and significan...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 454, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...f the above scenarios is true, then the authors argument of not permitting inoculation ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 548, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...illness. If the above is true, then the authors recommendation is not convincing. In...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1935.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10324389416 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.442666666667 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 622.8 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.2456708894 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.75 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.75 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285858836127 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0979847870779 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0703013932719 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175838615903 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0466983944939 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.