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.
The argument is about the permission of inoculations against cow flu and how should it be adminstered. Because inoculations may lead to a small possibility of a human-being's, the routine administration can't be performed. The argument rests upon several unwarranted assumptions which leads to a illogical hypothesis.
At first, inoculations may result into a death of a person. There is a small possibility associated with it. There is no proper evidence to back up this stand. There has to be a proper study or research related to such claims, without the empirical evidence, the statement becomes obsolete. Even if, there was a study, how many people were conducted into the study, was it five people or five hundred people? A valid empirical study about inoculations and death of a human-being has to be presented to solidify the statement. Still, the people that were dead due to inoculations, there might have been other reasons associated with it. They may had been suffering from other deaseases which are susceptible to inoculations. If there are true, then the arguments conclusion is significantly weakened.
Additionally, the lives might be saved if the inoculations are regularly performed in the disease affected areas. The cow flu may have evolved in the span of time, inoculations may even be inefective. Only relying on inoculations is not a good sign of saving a great amount of people from cow flu. There may be other ways to tackle this problem and give better treatments. Limiting the view that only inoculations is solution to saving people may lead to a great problem, as there is chance of people dying due to it. Inoculations may be costly to exercise routinely in people. The affected area may not be economically sound to have this performed routinely. Another reason may be, perhaps the areas are densely populated. We may even need thousands of medical stuff to perform such huge task of inoculations to all people.
Furthermore, there was no statments about the side effects of inoculation other than possible chance of death. There may be other insidious side effects of such remedy. This may even lead to more sick people as the author wants to have all the people to be inoculated. Proper study about inoculations has to be done before performing on to humans. Some people with other deadly diseases such as cancer, brain tumors, and kidney failures may have the ability to withstand inoculation. If these are true, then then the argument holds no water.
In conclusion, the authors argument, as it stands now, are flawed with numerous unwarranted assumptions, for which proper evidences have to be given. Only then, the argument makes a cogent case.
Comments
e-rater score report
Out of topic.
---------------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 445 350
No. of Characters: 2178 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.593 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.894 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.837 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.345 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.894 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.724 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.286 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.459 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 203, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...uman-beings, the routine administration cant be performed. The argument rests upon s...
^^^^
Line 1, column 293, 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
... unwarranted assumptions which leads to a illogical hypothesis. At first, in...
^
Line 3, column 10, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to a illogical hypothesis. At first, inoculations may result into a death of ...
^^
Line 3, column 162, 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.
... proper evidence to back up this stand. There has to be a proper study or research re...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 755, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...culations. If there are true, then the arguments conclusion is significantly weakened. ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 504, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: then
...thstand inoculation. If these are true, then then the argument holds no water. In con...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... holds no water. In conclusion, the authors argument, as it stands now, are flawed ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, may, so, still, then, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2249.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05393258427 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94818785696 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485393258427 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 735.3 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.2119647111 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 77.5517241379 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.3448275862 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.58620689655 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 19.0 6.88822355289 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292972629247 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0839316159887 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0673225156813 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156819609302 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.083717379188 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => 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.