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

The author posits that inoculations against cow flu cannot be routinely permitted. To bolster his claims he has put forward few opinions that there is a small possibility that person will die of inoculation. However, the argument is flawed and has many immaterial aspects to be reviewed before it can be considered veracious.
Firstly, the author has never mentioned the exact count of people who succumbed to the flu. There might be myriad number of people who can get effected with this flu. What if the number of people who are administered the vaccination have more survival chance than the number effected with flu ? This would certainly lead to an confound situation of prioritizing the more beneficial one. It is best to take the shot at this moment than to live with uncertainty of getting effected. If this is considered a viable fact the argument would be undermined.
Secondly, the population and the ratio of young to old is never discussed. What if the people who are never given the vaccine shot also succumb to death because of getting old ? There are high possibilities that people either effected or unaffected would finally pass away after their tenure. After getting old most of the group would always face some medical criticalities and would in return get admitted in hospital which also have patients effected with cow flu. Thus, increasing the chances of more decimation. This controversy would further weaken the author's view.
Furthermore, as it is mentioned that there is a slight chance of death after vaccination. Considering the extreme negative effects even if administered to a certain amount of population What if they never show up ? They might have got frightened more with willing death than with the cow flu which they can't take control over. They would try to mitigate the chances of getting effected as much as possible but there is always a certainty.
To conclude, In my opinion the argument is fallacious with many unwarranted assumptions and unanswered questions. This can only be considered tenable if author provides more evidence and answers to these misleading questions.

Votes
Average: 7 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 324, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...with flu ? This would certainly lead to an confound situation of prioritizing the ...
^^
Line 2, column 324, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...with flu ? This would certainly lead to an confound situation of prioritizing the more bene...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 481, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...e with uncertainty of getting effected. If this is considered a viable fact the ar...
^^
Line 3, column 310, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ay after their tenure. After getting old most of the group would always face some...
^^
Line 4, column 303, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... death than with the cow flu which they cant take control over. They would try to mi...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, in my opinion

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1770.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 349.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07163323782 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77876926463 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512893982808 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.6666256864 57.8364921388 48% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.2857142857 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.619047619 23.324526521 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.90476190476 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => 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: 0.172151813423 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.053494677569 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0672952776481 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107562099383 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0931702666863 0.0628817314937 148% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.83 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 349 350
No. of Characters: 1738 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.322 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.98 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.698 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.619 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.825 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.287 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5