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 assumption that since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, innoculations against cow flu cannot permitted to be routinely administered is not logically convincing based on certain considerations.
First the arguments failed to provide evidences as regared other factors that could result in the death of someone that receives inoculations against cowflu, for it is possible that such individuals posseses other more critical ailments and has reached its worse stages before contracting the cowflu, Ultimately, administering the inoculations would serve no benefit to other ailments. since other ailments were not treated, the death in question may be a result of the untreated ailments. Had the arguement stated that the affected individuals possess no other underlying ailments, then the argument could be valid.
The arguement assumes that everyone is the same and what affects a person will affect others, this can not be the case, evidences supporting the status, gender, age group etc of the affected individuals needs to be presented in order to validate the claim. For it is possible that the stated possibility was inferred from an unbalanced study group, if this is the case, making such a generic claim is inappropriate. However, if evidences are presented of the effect on larger and comprehensive study groups, then the claim, can be validated
Finally, the arguement failed to provide evidence as regards the theraupetic and toxic dose levels of the innoculations, for we know that a drug or vaccine is only useful at its therapeutic dose, anything below or beyond this dose can be lethal. For it is posssible that the innoculation when abused becomes toxic and ultimately result in the death of the person taking it. Had the arguement presented the therapeutic and toxic levels of the innoculations taken by people and its consequencs, it would be more valid.
Ultimately, the claim is not logically convincing and evidences such as number, gender etc of study groups and doses of administratio are thereby required to validate the claim.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 338 350
No. of Characters: 1732 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.288 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.124 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.942 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.222 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.406 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.725 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Since
...uld serve no benefit to other ailments. since other ailments were not treated, the de...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, as regards, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1783.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 338.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27514792899 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01634292455 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 97.2041151392 57.8364921388 168% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.3 119.503703932 149% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.8 23.324526521 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201627990847 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.088361159224 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105438962242 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128336588088 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135560063863 0.0628817314937 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.3 14.3799401198 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.52 48.3550499002 61% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.197005988 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.94 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 12.3882235529 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 21.0 11.9071856287 176% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.