Cow flu is one of the deadliest disease in the recent times. Once it is detected in a certain area, there are few ways to stop its spreading within the human. The given passage discussess inoculation as one of the way to save valuable lives and finally dismisses it beacause of the associated risks. While the aim of the author is make a recommendation which is beneficial to the people, the argument provided contains some major flaws in its reasonings and assumptions.
Firstly, the author mentions that if inoculation against cow flu is routinely administered against people then many lives might be saved. But it comes with a risk. But the author does not provide any information on if there is any alternative way for fighting cow flu. If there is not any viable alternative and inoculation is the only way of surviving against this disease, then there is no way but to take the risk. Even if there are alternatives, they might not be more effective than inoculation and might come with a greater risk. So, further evidence must be provide regarding alternatives which might be able to save lives and their effectiveness to strengthen the argument.
In addition, the excerpt states that the possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculation is small. But the passage fails to provide the quantification and study method for determining that possiblity. How small is the possiblity of death due to inoculation? Does it increase or decrease if the inoculation is done routinely? If the possibility is sufficiently low and stasistically improbable the inoculation might be the safest choice to save lives against cow flu. Detailed study regarding this must be done and the author should answer these questions in order to strengthen his position.
On the other hand, the inoculation might actually come with greater risk than benefit. The first statement says many lives might be saved but doesn't specifiy actually how many life. If the percentage of success is not sufficiently high, then inoculation might not be safe afterall and the author is righteous in his recommendation of not permiting this approach. But more evidence needs to be given which will corroborate the author's position in the passage.
The argument presented by the author not only suffers from flawed assumptions but also lack of evidences in developing his recommendation. Including the answers and evidences mentioned above will definitely strengthen his argument and provide the readers a better background for the recommendation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ment says many lives might be saved but doesnt specifiy actually how many life. If the...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 172, Rule ID: MANY_FEW_UNCOUNTABLE[2]
Message: Use 'much' or 'little' with uncountable nouns.
Suggestion: much; little
... saved but doesnt specifiy actually how many life. If the percentage of success is n...
^^^^
Line 7, column 172, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun life seems to be countable; consider using: 'many lives'.
Suggestion: many lives
... saved but doesnt specifiy actually how many life. If the percentage of success is not su...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 273, Rule ID: AFTERALL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'after all'?
Suggestion: after all
...igh, then inoculation might not be safe afterall and the author is righteous in his reco...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'in addition', 'as a result', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.233183856502 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.17264573991 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0762331838565 0.0836205057962 91% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0582959641256 0.0520304965353 112% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0269058295964 0.0272364105082 99% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114349775785 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0470852017937 0.0416121511921 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.02068544737 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.02466367713 0.026700313972 92% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12331838565 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0313901345291 0.0255425247493 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0112107623318 0.0127820249294 88% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2532.0 2731.13054187 93% => OK
No of words: 415.0 446.07635468 93% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10120481928 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.33734939759 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.274698795181 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.219277108434 0.208842608468 105% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.161445783133 0.135150697306 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02068544737 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469879518072 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 51.0697153187 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 18.8636363636 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.6483671193 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.090909091 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8636363636 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.636363636364 0.724660767414 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 46.3335158817 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.53043478261 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.449758225221 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120117407147 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0901741572458 0.0829849096947 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.558806233915 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.130652746662 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.184861145642 0.193483328276 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0960469352237 0.0970749176394 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.412189626071 0.42659136922 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.067171862876 0.0774707102158 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.300741690266 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0876632833934 0.0698173142475 126% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.