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 i

Essay topics:

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.

The argument states that it will be a bad decision to routinely administer inoculations against cow flu. This argument could be valid, but it is lacking in the following pieces of supporting evidence.

Are inoculations against cow flu, properly administered, a standalone cause of death? The writer assumes that cow flu inoculation, can be a sole case of death. It is quite possible that death caused by the inoculation is a result of overdose. The author didn't also consider the possibility that the cow flu vaccine may only lead to death in people with the disease, in which case, the immunization will not be deleterious to healthy people. Thus, if the author is able to carry out a research that would show that cow flu inoculation can be a sole cause of death, his argument would be better strangthened.

Will the absence of vaccination save more lives than the presence of it? If the inoculations are not routinely administered, many lives might be lost, as stated by the author. However, he goes on to state that it is better eschew inoculation. By doing this, he assumes that we can save more lives than will be lost to cow flu. Thus, the author will need to provide proof that a routine admistration will lead to more deaths than a lack of prevention.

In conclusion, this argument is flawed because it is precariously based on spurious assumptions. However, if the writer is able to provide the supporting evidences as stated above, it might be able to strengthen his position that we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.

Votes
Average: 4.5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ght into the problem. That is, a person isnt in the thick of the situation will be a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 418, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...tarted from. However, a firefighter who isnt in the fire can more easily predict the...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, so, then, well, while, for example, as well as, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2013.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 391.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14833759591 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07476663506 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501278772379 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 704.065955056 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2134675641 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.947368421 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5789473684 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.89473684211 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.319109852257 0.243740707755 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935319114449 0.0831039109588 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0970695832963 0.0758088955206 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203378123581 0.150359130593 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820898483811 0.0667264976115 123% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 100.480337079 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:

para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.


Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 270 350
No. of Characters: 1266 1500
No. of Different Words: 125 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.054 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.689 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.851 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 82 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 61 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 45 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.796 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5