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.
The argument provided claims that the routine administration of cow flu vaccinations cannot be undertaken because of the small probability of death, despite the fact that it may save many lives when done in areas where the disease is detected. To evaluate this argument, several important pieces of evidence concerning the virulence of the disease, details on the areas it affects, the possibility of death or other side effects due to the inoculations, and details on the governing body banning the routine administration of the vaccination are required.
Firstly, information about the severity of cow pox like its spread rate, death rate, and quality of life of the survivors is crucial. If every infectious person is able to infect up to 1 other person on average, there is no serious danger of the disease spiraling out of control and becoming an epidemic, so there is more leeway for lax administration of the vaccines. However, if every infected person goes on to spread the disease to 5-10 others, it will quickly spread throughout the local population. In this case, the need to protect vulnerable members of society like elderly, children, and the immunosuppressed, severely weaken the argument against the vaccine's routine administration. On the other hand, if the disease has a very low death rate, lower than the common cold for example, there is less danger to the population due to the disease and so the argument to avoid the routine administration of the vaccine is strengthened. Finally, if after recovering from the disease, the survivors' quality of life is severely impacted and they need continuous medical attention, which will stress both their finances and the national healthcare burden, the inoculations against the flu become much more important, weakening the argument.
Information about the areas it affects is also crucial, and highly linked to the virulence of the disease. If the population is more vulnerable to the disease, or certain environmental conditions in the area worsen its severity, the routine administration of vaccination in those regions becomes much more important. However, some areas may be less susceptible to the worst of the disease, and the argument would be much more relevant to those regions.
The severity of side effects and deaths due to the inoculations has also not been highlighted by the argument. If the death rate due to the inoculations is higher than the disease, than it is a major point in favor of the argument against its routine administration. However, if the death rate is much lower than the disease, coming from perhaps only a few isolated cases, and other side effects of the inoculation are minor and temporary, the case for routine administration in vulnerable areas and populations is much stronger. If research exists detailing which sections of the population in particular face negative side effects from the vaccines while the rest are unaffected, the vaccine could be routinely administered in doses to the invulnerable population, to boost herd immunity. Finally, information of whether boosters of the vaccine are required and the danger posed by these boosters is also crucial, since if regular, dangerous boosters are need than the case against the inoculation0 is strengthened.
Finally, details on the governing body making the statement would also help evaluate the argument. If they are in a precarious position or have limited authority, it may not be possible for them to advocate a cure with any inherent risk, regardless of whether it would help the population overall. Additionally, if research on the vaccine is relatively recent and not peer reviewed, they may be more hesitant on pushing for routine administration till more confirmed numbers are obtained. Finally, the burden of payment of the vaccine may also be a consideration point for them; if it is too expensive, their constituents may not be in the position to foot the bill for routine administrations. However, provided they have sufficient authority and funding, and trustworthy data indicates high local virulence of the disease in the areas where the disease is detected and low potential overall harm from the vaccine, their case against the routine administration of inoculations is severely weakened.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 687 350
No. of Characters: 3511 1500
No. of Different Words: 268 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.12 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.111 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.949 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 257 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 227 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 140 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.895 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.905 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 396, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...w isolated cases, and other side effects of the inoculation are minor and tempora...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, then, while, for example, in particular, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 55.5748502994 166% => OK
Nominalization: 41.0 16.3942115768 250% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3599.0 2260.96107784 159% => OK
No of words: 687.0 441.139720559 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23871906841 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.11963717896 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05718718974 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.416302765648 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1180.8 705.55239521 167% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 14.0 2.70958083832 517% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.1285489717 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 171.380952381 119.503703932 143% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.7142857143 23.324526521 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.206782294584 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651001101991 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047685547892 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122381675028 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351628460803 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.6 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.54 48.3550499002 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 98.500998004 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => 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.