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.
In the argument presented here, author is claiming that they cannot permit routine administration of the inoculations against cow flu because there is only small possibility that someone will die as a result of that. However, it is also mentioned in the opening line that many lives could be saved if routinely administration is done where disease is detected. Following points raise questions against the argument proposed bu the author.
Firstly, it is clearly told that how many lives could be saved. Many word used here is quite useless to determine the severity of the disease. If there had been a number given which could essentially tell approximate number of people dying due to the disease could have made the argument more acceptable.
Similarly, in the second line the author mentioned about the small possibility on the death due to disease. Author did not tell about how much exactly or approximately. Mathematically, small possibility in the small number of cases would be insignificant number of deaths, however small possibility in the large number of cases could be significant enough to pay attention to the disease.
Secondly, it is not mentioned that the inoculations against cow flu is the only cause of the death. There can be a possibility that other harmful diseases happens to people to the after the inoculations against cow flu, and the inoculations against cow flu is the major cause of the additional disease. That way the inoculations against cow flu could be one of the deleterious for the people. Other disease imparted due to the inoculations against cow flu may be lethal. And author should consider the ramifications of this disease. For example, dengue is the disease which causes the high fever. Even after dengue is fixed but the platelet count dropped during the high fever could be possible root cause for patients's death in future. In this case, cause of death as dengue was out of picture because according to doctor it got treated. But the ramification of dengue persisted in the body which ultimately led to death. Here, the actual cause of death is dengue but loss of platelets would be real reason as there were no sign of dengue at the time of death.
Thirdly, there is no mention of the data which could shed light on the impact of the inoculations against cow flu after routine administration, there might be a possibility that authors argument is right. As the inoculations against cow flu, may not be decreased after even administration is one of the untested possibility. But author has to provide the evidences to support his/ her argument.
In conclusion, the author's argument that the small possibility of the death due to the inoculations against cow flu is the reason for not permitting the routine administration of all people in areas where the disease is detected is not convincing due to points mentioned above. To lead to any result, author should back his/her argument with proper data and surveys. Author's argument is devoid of evidences here.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
more arguments wanted, like:
1. the flu may spread to other areas.
2. the government or responsible body may find a way to improve the vaccine
------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2459 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.869 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.782 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.952 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.64 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.536 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 226, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e will die as a result of that. However, it is also mentioned in the opening line...
^^
Line 3, column 65, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun word seems to be countable; consider using: 'Many words'.
Suggestion: Many words
...old that how many lives could be saved. Many word used here is quite useless to determine...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 144, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... determine the severity of the disease. If there had been a number given which cou...
^^
Line 7, column 177, Rule ID: THE_EXACTLY_THE[1]
Message: Duplicated 'the' in the phrase: 'the after the'. Did you mean 'after the'?
Suggestion: after the
...r harmful diseases happens to people to the after the inoculations against cow flu, and the i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 407, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eleterious for the people. Other disease imparted due to the inoculations against...
^^
Line 7, column 728, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...possible root cause for patientss death in future. In this case, cause of death as dengue...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 947, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ely led to death. Here, the actual cause of death is dengue but loss of platelets...
^^
Line 9, column 396, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...evidences to support his/ her argument. In conclusion, the authors argument that...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
.../ her argument. In conclusion, the authors argument that the small possibility of ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, thirdly, as to, for example, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2519.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99801587302 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8452567742 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412698412698 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 810.0 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6361476349 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.76 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.16 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.341517805059 0.218282227539 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0984448601783 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0951666689417 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187519285729 0.128457276422 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0803690941292 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.