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.
According to the author, innoculations against cow flu cannot be permitted to be routinely administered to everyone in the area affected by cow flu. Since, the
innoculation is not completely devoid of side effects and can even cause death in few cases, the author holds a stand against it. However, the argument is flawed and based on many unstated assumptions with several unanswered questions.
The argument does not specify how or why the claim that the innoculations might result in death has been made. The details of any research, if done on this subject and it's findings needs to be read to decide the validity of this claim. If there is no scientific evidence that links deaths to innoculations, this claim cannot be considered.
There is no data regarding the infection rates of cow flu, it's transmission rates among a population, death rates of cow flu infections and death rates due to
innoculations againg cow flu. If the probability of a person dying due to the infection is significantly higher than the probability of his/her death due to innoculation, one can assume it to be a wiser approach to opt for the low risk option - to administer the innoculations againt cow flu routinely.
However, this holds water only if the innoculations are effective against cow-flu. The author's claim that many lives can be saved if innoculations were routinely administered is not backed by any supporting evidences. If the probability of a person getting infected by cow flu or dying due to cow flu even after being administered the innoculation is high, one needs to calculate the overall risk of deaths with and without innoculations before evaluating the argument. One needs to look at the efficacy rates of the innoculations in preventing the infections as well as in preventing the deaths due to infections.
Therefore, the argument is based on debatable claims. It fails to answer many relevant questions and does not provide important data about the rates of transmission, death rates and efficacy rates. The argument's strength can be better evaluated with these data and a better decision can be made about the administering of routine innoculations across populations.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1791 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.975 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.044 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.126 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.608 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 203, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...on, death rates and efficacy rates. The arguments strength can be better evaluated with t...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, look, regarding, so, therefore, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1837.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 359.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11699164345 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11367825633 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.479108635097 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 705.55239521 84% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1586641183 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.466666667 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9333333333 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.06666666667 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
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 : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.205320582255 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0802910300583 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0802001477553 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117645723277 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0861202751317 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.