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.
In the argument presented here, the author dismisses vaccination of human being against cow flu as non-permissible, because there is a "small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations."
This is a matter pertaining to life and death and needs to be evaluated very seriously, based on specific scientific evidences, before taking the final call in the matter.
The first and foremost requirement one would say, are the definitions or rather quantification of the terms "many", "routinely" and "small", in order to come to any conclusion.
Let us consider each term one by one. When we talk of "many lives being saved", how many are we exactly talking of. For this, we need to know - who are the people affected by cow flu, how many people does it affect, how many lives does cow flu usually claim, and of these, how many will be saved, if they receive this vaccine. A quantification of these numbers is likely to give a much better perspective for further decision on this matter. Such information may be available from local hospitals or health bodies, and can be studied by experts to look for patterns.
Again, if people need the vaccine "routinely", how often or far apart do they require it? Is it an overdose that is making it fatal? In the same vein, one may also ask, if one single dose of the vaccine is as harmful as continued dose? Thus, if there is a chance, that a single dose may prevent this disease while also being non-fatal to human beings, we may be looking at a perfectly viable solution here. This needs to be determined by expert doctors based on the available data and their experience with such patients.
Furthermore, the "small possibility of death" too needs more explanation. How small is it exactly? A related aspect that also needs to be looked into is that the people who died, did they have any underlying medical conditions that was aggravated due to the vaccine, resulting in their death? If this be the case, people with these common conditions could be excluded and the rest could be adminisered the vaccine without the feat of the inoculation being fatal to them. A very pertinent example is that of the Coronavirus pandemic, which affects people with other conditions more, compared to the young, healthy ones. But, to reach to such conclusion, a very detailed study of the cow fly cases - symptoms and deaths etc. will need to be done, to find out the information desired.
Moreover, apart from the precautionary and preventive measures of the disease, one may also look into the treatment aspect of it. Is this vaccine the only way to save people from cow flu? If the vaccine is the only way to save people, then not administering it "because of a small possibility" that a person may die, may cause more deaths in any case - as they would die from cow flu. In contrast, if that is not the case, then definitely, instead of putting people's lives at risk, other options should be employed, while scientists and experts try to come up with inoculations without the present side-effects. However, if say, it is the "only cost-effective method" to save people from cow-flu at a large scale, it may be prudent to look into the finer details of the treatment.
Thus, in conclusion, one may say that outright rejection of the cow flu vaccine is not sensible, based on the given information. Several more evidences are required for a deeper study, before any conclusion can be arrived at.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 600 350
No. of Characters: 2741 1500
No. of Different Words: 261 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.949 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.568 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.624 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.077 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.813 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.278 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 134, 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
...lu as non-permissible, because there is a 'small possibility that a person w...
^
Line 8, column 227, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...efore any conclusion can be arrived at.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, thus, while, apart from, in conclusion, in contrast, talking of, as a result, in any case
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2941.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 600.0 441.139720559 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90166666667 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94923200384 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11700178159 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 204.123752495 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 936.0 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 14.0 2.70958083832 517% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.22255489022 308% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.588087893 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.115384615 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0769230769 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30769230769 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.15768463074 155% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228874031907 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0637557428519 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0563932111482 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107542535659 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0696396141151 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 12.3882235529 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.