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. it inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.
While there might not be enough inoculations available to routinely be administered to all people in areas where cow flu is detected, the arguments presented by the author here is completely fallacious and full of holes. There are several important aspects which need to be considered before reaching a stringent conclusion of not permitting inoculations to be routinely administered.
Firstly, what does the author actually indicate by a small possibility of death? If we assume that there is a 1% chance of death from cow flu,then in a flu affected community of 10,000 people, about a 100 people will die. This is a massive number and can not be neglected. Every human life matters and must be protected at any cost. Without knowing the actual numerical probability of death, one can not arrive at any prudent decision regarding not administering inoculations.
Secondly, how many areas are affected by cow flu? If the number of areas affected are tractable, then there should not be any problems in routinely administering inoculations. This also depends directly on the availability of inoculations. If the number of inoculations available can cover all the affected areas, then there seems to be no logical reason to not permit inoculations to be routinely administered.
Moreover, the author assumes that probability of death is the only deciding factor here. However, there may be countless side effects of cow flu. A person contacting such flu might be immobilized for a few weeks in which case he can not fulfill any of his personal or social committments. There might be other long term side effects which can cause a greater heath concern for the flu affected people. Without knowing the full extension of the side effects of cow flu, we can not reach a valid conclusion.
Additionally, the author presents no valid arguments in favor of not permitting inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. If there is indeed a shortage of available inoculations, in which case it would be impossible to inoculate every flu affected area. In order to decide a viable course of action, we must have an account of the availability of inoculations.
In conclusion, it must be stated that the author arguments contain numerous logical fallacies and thus can not be used to reach any significant conclusions in such an important matter.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1921 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.964 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.99 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.591 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 142, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , then
...ere is a 1% chance of death from cow flu,then in a flu affected community of 10,000 p...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 16.3942115768 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12176165803 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08645352048 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487046632124 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.0704525154 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.85 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
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: 0.318777594887 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10248054 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795442645924 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176853044681 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0848583249914 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.