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.
Numerous arguments present in the excerpt are unwarranted. Firstly, if many lives can be saved from routine inoculations against cow flu, then routine inoculation must be done. Secondly, the author cannot decline the first fact presented by simply stating that the possibility of death as a result of inoculation is low, death is a soul-shaking event and affects a lot of people. Thirdly, routine inoculation is vague as it fails to provide any insight to what a routine exactly is. Hence, the argument lags on various accounts therefore the conclusion becomes questionable.
Each and every life is indispensable. Cow flu is a disease that is curable with routined innoculation hence, the authorities should work to ensure the health of their citizens. The author deliberately chooses to ignore the fact in the first statement, therefore uses reasons which are not valid until more context is provided. The author may be worried about the expenditure in conducting inoculations for a myriad of people but fails to share his/her doubts which make his conclusion seem unsound.
The absurdity of the reason provided by the author to limit the inoculation clearly reveals the author's stance towards life which is unwarranted as no more information is given to suggest on the contrary. A small possibility of death still implies that people are at risk, just the fatality rate is low. Fatality is not the only reason inoculation should be conducted frequently. Cow flu could further damage the economy which in my opinion the author is most concerned about. An economy is developed by the people and even if a small percentage of people die compared to the population still the impact on the economy can be devastating. Hence, the author fails to comprehend the long-term consequences of his/her conclusions which begs the question "is the author trying to protect something which he/she is already unwittingly destroying".
Finally, we don't know the author's understanding of routinely, routinely could mean daily which to some extent makes the author's stance correct as it would certainly cost a lot to conduct inoculations so frequently. Even if we consider that indeed what the author assumes is veritable, the routine needs be changed but reaching the decision the inoculations against cow flu cannot be routinely administered is not a solution to the problem.
Since, the author fails to reach a logical conclusion even with the help of unwarranted assumptions. The author's stance can be perhaps deemed unwarranted.
| 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 |
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal rec 52
- Formal education tends to restrain our minds and spirits rather than set them free. 58
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until college 66
- Claim Even though young people often receive the advice to follow your dreams more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals Reason Many people s dreams are inherently selfish 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 410 350
No. of Characters: 2072 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.5 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.054 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.89 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.891 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ch make his conclusion seem unsound. The absurdity of the reason provided by the...
^^^
Line 5, column 97, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mit the inoculation clearly reveals the authors stance towards life which is unwarrante...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 13, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...tingly destroying'. Finally, we dont know the authors understanding of routi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 121, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...an daily which to some extent makes the authors stance correct as it would certainly co...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ed is not a solution to the problem. Since, the author fails to reach a logical co...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 106, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he help of unwarranted assumptions. The authors stance can be perhaps deemed unwarrante...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 156, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ance can be perhaps deemed unwarranted.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, as a result, in my opinion, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2134.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25615763547 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99662505204 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522167487685 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 677.7 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3959642669 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.315789474 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3684210526 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94736842105 5.70786347227 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254718088174 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0797401041927 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0906886218093 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145476508726 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0882017171538 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.