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.
Cow flu is one of the deadliest disease in the recent times. Once it is detected in a certain area, there are few ways to stop its spreading within the human. The given passage discussess inoculation as one of the way to save valuable lives and finally dismisses it beacause of the associated risks. The above statement argues that because of the small fatality risk that the cow flu innoculation poses, it should not be routinely administered. The argument is deceptively attractive because it catters to people's fears of possible death. However, I find the argument insufficient as it fails to provide crucial data that can perhaps strengthen or weaken the the decision to ban routine innoculations.
Anyone who has seen TV advertisments for FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs will notice that most drugs have an huge list of potentially severe side effects and in some cases even a risk of death. Nonetheless, these drugs have been approved by the FDA because the benefit they provide outweighs the potential negative effects. For example, chemotherapy, which is a very invasive procedure to cure cancer, poses a high degree of fatality risk, weakens the immune system, causes hair loss and can even lead to death. Nonetheless, people continue to choose to take it because its benefit outweighs the risk of death. In order for the author's statement to make a logical sense, we need to have statistical data on the possibility of death from vaccination. That would enable us to make a sound judgment on whether the risk is high enough to ban its use.
Furthermore, we need to be provided with evidence on what would the consequences be of not routinely administering the cow flu innoculations. It might be that the fatalities from the lack of innoculations outnumbers the possible fatalities from the adminstration of the vaccine. In this case, one can make a logical argument that the, even though there is a small risk for death from the innocultions, it is even more imperative to provide the innoculations to prevent more deaths from cow flu. It might be that there are alternatives to innoculations that can perhaps protect people from cow flu with no or a much smaller risk of fatality, and that whomever banned the cow flu innoculations has done so in favor of these alternatives. If this is indeed true, we need a detailed information on these alternative drugs.
In addition, the argument does not specify what 'routinely' exacty means. We need evidence on the number of innoculations needed to sufficiently protect one from cow flu. What the author needs to clearly specify is how many times a person needs to be innoculated to avoid cow pox that is if the enitre procedure requires one vaccine per year, then we need evidence on the frequence of innoculations that exposes one to risk of fatality from the vaccination itself. It maybe that we only need to adminster the innoculation only once in a lifetime, in which case there is no need to routinely adminster the vaccination.
In conclusion, the argument posited in the given statement is weak because it does not provide us with vital evidences that are needed to evaluate the argument. In order to strengthen or weaken the argument, we need data on the number of fatalities from the adminstration of the innoculations, the number of fatalities from cow flu in the absence of innoculations, and if they exist, altenative ways of protecting people from cow flu. Furthermore, we need specific information on the maximum number of innoculations need to sucessfully protect one from cow flu and the minimum number of innoculations that expose one to the risk of fatality.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 24 15
No. of Words: 612 350
No. of Characters: 2968 1500
No. of Different Words: 248 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.974 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.85 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.951 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 157 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.708 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.509 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.171 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 446, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t should not be routinely administered. The argument is deceptively attractive beca...
^^^
Line 1, column 656, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...a that can perhaps strengthen or weaken the the decision to ban routine innoculations. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 656, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...a that can perhaps strengthen or weaken the the decision to ban routine innoculations. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 109, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... drugs will notice that most drugs have an huge list of potentially severe side ef...
^^
Line 3, column 631, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ghs the risk of death. In order for the authors statement to make a logical sense, we n...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 331, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...e, one can make a logical argument that the, even though there is a small risk for d...
^^^^
Line 5, column 603, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...erhaps protect people from cow flu with no or a much smaller risk of fatality, and...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, then, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 93.0 55.5748502994 167% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3034.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95751633987 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02787609758 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418300653595 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 999.0 705.55239521 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.9772270788 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.416666667 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 20.0 6.88822355289 290% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176333808726 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058458184563 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.046192776945 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111153119429 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626650254362 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.