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.
Cow flu is indubitably a fatal illness that doctors and policy-makers must take seriously. Just as CVS and Minute Clinic provide free flu vacinations, administering routine cow flu vacination has enormous benefits. But as the writer states, there is a possibility that the person may die from inoculation. That being said, we need to consider a few things before stopping routine administration: how many people have died as a result of routine administration, whether there is a statistically significant trend as a result of such administration, and the costs associated with administration.
We first need to ask ourselves how many people have died as a result of cow flu. The writer seems to overlook how many people have died due to cow flu in lieu of the possibility that someone may die as a result of inoculation. Unless we know how many people have died as a result of inoculation, we cannot assume that because a person will die as a result, we should stop administering inoculations. If we stop inoculating and the number of people dying from cow flu increases, we will inevitably need to ask ourselves a normative question: Was it worth stopping routine administration? If the number of deaths is significantly greater because of cow flu, then we must continue routine administration regardless of that possibility.
In addition, it is helpful to know whether there is some statistically significant trend between death and inoculation. It is easy to state, "A person died after inoculation, therefore he or she must have died due to inoculation." This is a classic case of correlation is causation, but do we really know if the person died due to inoculation? A statistically significant trend will rule out whether the person may have died from some other cause after inoculation; otherwise, we are concluding that the person must have died because of inoculation.
Most importantly, we should consider the costs of routine administration. Perhaps the writer is most concerned about logistics, supplies, transportation, and the wages of nurses administering the vaccine. The writer may solely be most concerned about those costs, not about the people he or she is writing about. In other words, money may drive his or her argument. If we have an idea of the costs of administration, we would better understand his or her motives behind his or her stance; it is too easy to conclude that the writer has positive intentions behind stopping routine administations.
Before we can make any decisions, we need more evidence. It is easy to make decisions based on fear ("there is a small possibility"), concluding that correlation is causation ("a person will die as a result of the inoculations"), and money ("permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered"). Once we have more substantial, pertinent evidence, we can decide whether we should permit routine inoculation administrations.
Comments
Here goes the report:https:/
Here goes the report:
https://www.testbig.com/comment/90470#comment-90470
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, look, may, really, so, then, therefore, in addition, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2486.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2447257384 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.51995605361 2.78398813304 126% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430379746835 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 808.2 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 4.96107784431 323% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3100285463 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.3 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.8 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328915311755 0.218282227539 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112481792952 0.0743258471296 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0780723545807 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194677241442 0.128457276422 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0955225703925 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.