"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 the 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
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 inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. The conclusion stands on the base of the assumption that since there is a slight possibility that the inoculation could be small percentage of people would be adversely affected by the negative fatal effect of the inoculation, hence cannot be administered to a large population
In a survey it was proved that 95% of the lives were saved when inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in Small Ville, where the disease was detected. However, some people died after the inoculation administered, but it was not definitely guaranteed that the cause of the death was due to the inoculation administered. Doctors are of the opinion that the death could have been because the inoculation had been administered when those people had been severely affected by the cow flu and there was no way to undo the damage caused to their bodies. The citizens of Small Ville are in favor of permitting inoculations against cow flu to be administered routinely, as they are of the belief that there are high chances of survival then death after the administration of the inoculation. Since inoculations against cow flu was adopted in Small Ville after the high rate of success it should be similarly adopted in all other areas where the disease is detected.
The above evidence can be undermined by the fact that what implies to the situation in Small Ville need not be true for all the regions where cow flu is a problem. It is quite possible that the death rate may be quite high compared to the success rate. In such a scenario, a better more reliable and successful solution needs to be found. There is quite another problem to the above evidence stated, which is even if the success rate of the inoculation is high but it lies behind various other side-effects which may have a long term damage to the body. Even in such a scenario the regular administration of the inoculation against cow flu is highly not recommended. Lastly, there is one another loophole in the above argument which is that the survey might have included only a small portion of the people administered by the inoculation, in fact mostly the successful cases not reflecting the real effect of the inoculation on most of the people of Small Ville.
It is quite likely that the evidence provided to support the stated argument can further be strengthened by stating that fact that most of the death thought to be caused mainly because of the harmful effects of the inoculation were not because of that but due to the irreversible damage caused to the patient's body. In some cases the fatal cases were found in people who were drug-abusers and it was later proven that the inoculations had an adverse effect when combined with a certain drugs in the body.
A lot of research work in this field needs to be done before coming to the final decision whether the inoculation against cow flu should be administered routinely or not because it has fatal consequences. If proven that the large number of deaths were mainly because of inoculation administration, a new and more reliable alternative needs to be immediately found before the cow flu becomes a rampant disease.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f proven that the large number of deaths were mainly because of inoculation admin...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'in fact', 'as a result', 'in some cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.1744 0.15541462614 112% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0752 0.0836205057962 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0592 0.0520304965353 114% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0176 0.0272364105082 65% => OK
Prepositions: 0.1472 0.125424944231 117% => OK
Participles: 0.0656 0.0416121511921 158% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87547535291 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.032 0.026700313972 120% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.1376 0.113004496875 122% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.024 0.0255425247493 94% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0192 0.0127820249294 150% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3470.0 2731.13054187 127% => OK
No of words: 593.0 446.07635468 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.85160202361 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93473315629 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.315345699831 0.378187486979 83% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.234401349073 0.287650121315 81% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.158516020236 0.208842608468 76% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111298482293 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87547535291 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.367622259696 0.469332199767 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.8573711923 52.1807786196 84% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 34.8823529412 23.2022227129 150% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.14662701 57.7814097925 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 204.117647059 141.986410481 144% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.8823529412 23.2022227129 150% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.705882352941 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 58.3224878484 51.9672348444 112% => OK
Elegance: 1.8025477707 1.8405768891 98% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.640718624024 0.441005458295 145% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.209804312175 0.135418324435 155% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0970335200675 0.0829849096947 117% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.66172040635 0.58762219726 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141491337933 0.147661913831 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.326145574478 0.193483328276 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.150880350658 0.0970749176394 155% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.589212885231 0.42659136922 138% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0830586449799 0.0774707102158 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.476253478168 0.312017818177 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.172274246973 0.0698173142475 247% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.