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 main argument of this essay is that since there is a small possibility that an individual can die as a result of inoculation against cow flu, the vaccines for it cannot be allowed to be routinely administered in areas where there are outbreaks of the disease. This argument as provided is quite weak and makes quite a few unfounded assumptions. There are at least three pieces of evidence required to evaluate the argument and conclude if it is reasonable or not.
The first piece of evidence needed is the difference in mortality rate for the inoculated versus the ones who are not. It has been mentioned that many lives would be saved by this vaccination but no evidence for how fatal the disease is has been provided. Perhaps, it is a mild flu for most people with no real impact. It could also be that perhaps it has very low fatality rate and most people escape unscathed. If either of these were true, the argument as it stand would be quite weakened.
The second piece of evidence required is the ratio of the number of people who could die because of the inoculation to the number of people who could die because of the disease. Perhaps, more people die of the disease than could ever die because of the vaccine. Maybe, the vaccine has a very small death rate, something like 1 in thousands over even a million. If either of these were true, the argument would lose all water as the number of deaths prevented by the vaccine would triumph over the number of possible deaths due to it.
The third piece of evidence is with respect to which groups of the population are the most susceptible to the cow flu inoculation related deaths.Maybe only select groups, like the elderly and children are likely to die due to the vaccine. It could also be that some immunocompromised individuals are not able to survive the inoculation, but the rest of the population would easily be able to survive it. If either of these were true, it would severely weaken the argument as the simple solution would be to inoculate only the ones who can safely take it and maximise the lives saved.
To conclude, the argument as it stands it quite flawed. If additional evidence like the evidence referenced could be provided, it would be much more possible to analyse the argument and evaluate if it is reasonable or unreasonable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 1870 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.539 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.532 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.27 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.346 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 145, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Maybe
... the cow flu inoculation related deaths.Maybe only select groups, like the elderly an...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...uite flawed. If additional evidence like the evidence referenced could be provide...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, so, third, at least, as a result, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1908.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.64233576642 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61873514358 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.423357664234 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 645.3 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.6444922443 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.235294118 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1764705882 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94117647059 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.255088894303 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784283570313 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862972305366 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142081139752 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0622056346865 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.93 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.