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 prompt concludes to impede or axe the ongoing vaccination drive against cow flu, pervasive in an area. The author makes the conclusion on the evidence that a person who has taken the said inoculation, has a small probability of dying. However, there are three unstated assumptions in the mentioned argument that need to be addresses before the argument can be evaluated further.
Firstly, the author contends that there is a small chance of the vaccine being fatal. We need to ask, what is the probability of a person dying due to the inoculation? Among the people who have died due to the vaccines, was there a trend of medical history associated with the departed patients? It maybe the case that only 10 out of 1000 vaccinated citizens found the vaccine fatal, and, all of them had the same health condition, say, high blood pressure or diabetes. If this is the case, the vaccine is actually benign, unless the patient has a certain medical history that should be considered before vaccinating him/her. The author does not provide any evidence to support his claim about the vaccines being life-threatening. We need to administer the effect of vaccines on a certain set of people, know their somatic details, and medical history before concluding the degree of 'fatality' of the inoculations.
Moreover, the author presents no evidence on the 'success' of the vaccines in any regions. Are the inoculations actually successful against cow flu? What were the results of the clinical trials, that are mandated before declaring the vaccines 'safe' for public use? The presented argument does not present any data that supports or avers the benignity of the cow flu cure. It may be the case that the vaccines are actually ineffective against cow flu. Or, none or not-enough clinical trials have been done on the vaccines. These clinical trials could have acted as a harbinger of lethal medicines. Due to the lack of trials, the drug administrators do not the reactions the vaccines may be causing in a patient's body. We need some evidence in the form of clinical reports or, any trial that has been done on some population to corroborate the effectiveness of inoculations.
Even if we assume that the vaccinations are safe for public use (and effective against cow flu), people might have died due to over-dose. The author has not mentioned who administers the vaccination of the people of affected area. It may happen that authority has asked the patients to vaccinate themselves, or an untrained nurse to vaccine the population. Due to ack of training, the administrator may inject a lethal amount of medicine in the body of the affected. If the administrators are trained professionals, then this assumption can be ruled out (but we still need to consider the other two). However, if this is case, the argument is bogus. With proper training and vaccine amount, the affected people can be saved against cow flu.
Due to lack of data and, evidence to support the unstated assumptions, the argument in question, stands flawed. Perhaps a research survey, in the form of clinical trials, might present enough proof to validate the mentioned argument. Other form of data collecting like surveys and training logitics is also needed before we can further impugn the statement.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 15 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 548 350
No. of Characters: 2655 1500
No. of Different Words: 238 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.838 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.845 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.73 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.897 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.479 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.448 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.277 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.458 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 359, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re we can further impugn the statement.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2733.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 547.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99634369287 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81328421562 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45886654479 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 873.9 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.138301019 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 94.2413793103 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8620689655 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75862068966 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181681205455 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058185552352 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0637673548546 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10578596661 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.044009554471 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.