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.
There are three main questions whose answers would be key to evaluating this argument: is it possible to screen out individuals who might have a negative reaction towards the drug administered; And if such screening is not possible then how many lives might be saved and what is the probability of a person dying as a result of these routine inoculations against cow flu? If the number of lives to be saved by administering routine inoculations is very large relative to the odds of a person dying, then we should administer the inoculations in pursuit of saving more lives.
Nearly all drugs are lethal in high enough dosages. The dosage of the inoculations administered against cow flu may be too low to actually cause any person to die. Medical trials might even reveal that it is possible to screen out people whose bodies might have a negative reaction towards the inoculations. This screening could be done through administering lower dosages first or through other means. In this case, the argument clearly does not hold true because no lives need to be lost.
In the exceptional case when no screening for negative reactions first can be done, then estimating the number of lives that might be saved and the number of people who may die as a result of the inoculations should be done by medical trials carried out by medical professionals. If such trials are not possible, or produce unreliable results, then one cannot in good conscience recommend administering inoculations because there is not enough information.
It is perhaps ethically troubling to be be using numbers to weight a tradeoff like this when human lives are involved; However, this tradeoff is already done on a smaller scale when administering ordinary flu vaccination: some people may turn out to have allergies or adversarial reactions towards the vaccines but this is an accepted consequence of vaccination when we weigh it against the benefits to public health. If we believe in the moral principle of trying to maximize the benefit towards all of society, then this tradeoff should be extended to the case when administering vaccinations or inoculations may even lead to death for some people.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | dkim1206 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | wcfr | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-16 | riyarmy | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Nowshin Tabassum | 70 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | Mizanur_Rahman | 55 | view |
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people s efficiency so that they have more leisure time Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 50
- Creativity should be used as the only true measure of intelligence Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address the most compelling reasons and 50
- Creativity should be used as the only true measure of intelligence 50
- Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic increasing commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving 27
- 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 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 363 350
No. of Characters: 1789 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.365 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.928 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.871 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.088 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.607 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 38, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: be
... It is perhaps ethically troubling to be be using numbers to weight a tradeoff like...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1823.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 363.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02203856749 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92606596755 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487603305785 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 113.388529745 57.8364921388 196% => OK
Chars per sentence: 165.727272727 119.503703932 139% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.0 23.324526521 141% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.54545454545 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339783863965 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141226732204 0.0743258471296 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0937556884145 0.0701772020484 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233448891145 0.128457276422 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0972304509394 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 14.3799401198 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.98 48.3550499002 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.43 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 30.0 12.3882235529 242% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.