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 author argues that providing people with regular doses of cow flu vaccine will help to save many lives, however this is not possible as some people die from inoculation. This argument is not convincing enough as it lacks important evidence about the credibility of so called facts presented.
Firstly, author needs to provide the evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccine against cow flu. There is no statistical data or opinion from doctors or scientists regarding the extent to which vaccine is capable of preventing the cow flu. What if the vaccine works against cow flu for only 2 people among 1000 people? Without analyzing this, the author posits that it is possible to save many lives if vaccine is given. If the data suggests that the vaccine is not very useful in safeguarding from cow flu, the argument does not hold water.
Secondly, author assumes that, cow flu is the major cause of death of people in some areas but fails to provide some sort of evidence which supports his assumption. There are many reasons why people die. Moreover, data about dead people such as age when they died, any co-morbidities if they had etc. This data is very useful to draw a pattern and come to conclusion about prevalent cause of death in that area. What if the major portion of dead people are only children under the age of 10 who were suffering from malnutrition? This scenario undermines the author's argument.
Lastly, there is no proof that the adverse effects of the vaccine are real. It could be possible that, people are dying because of improper way of inoculation or lack of proper after care or laxity of doctors. The author overlooks all these possibilities and jumps to the conclusion very quickly. Moreover, there is no mention of negative effects of vaccine from the official source which is developing the vaccines. Author should provide evidence to overcome these mentioned possibilities.
To conclude, because of aforementioned reasons, the author fails to present a cogent argument for audience. If, the author were to provide proof of efficacy of vaccine and data about the number of deaths occurring because of the inoculations, the argument can be evaluated correctly. Otherwise, author's argument should be taken with a grain of salt.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 559, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nutrition? This scenario undermines the authors argument. Lastly, there is no proof th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, sort of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1893.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98157894737 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66833670582 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489473684211 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.9486375129 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.1428571429 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0952380952 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less 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: 0.19286091345 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0618090062586 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619359401158 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112892759852 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.046354858226 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 559, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nutrition? This scenario undermines the authors argument. Lastly, there is no proof th...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, sort of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1893.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98157894737 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66833670582 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489473684211 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.9486375129 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.1428571429 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0952380952 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less 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: 0.19286091345 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0618090062586 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619359401158 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.112892759852 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.046354858226 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.