"Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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 author claims that inoculations should be avoided in a particular area where the cow flu has been detected. Stated in this way, the author failed to mention several key factors on the basis of which the argument needs to be evaluated. To justify it further, the author reasons that due to these inoculations, there is further a small possibility that a person will die. However, careful scrutiny of the argument provides little creditable support to the author's argument. Hence the author's argument in incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author mentioned that many lives can be saved due to inoculations against cow flu. Since cow flu could spread throughout the region or a big area which cause the death of may people. Hence, inoculations should be routinely administered in order to avoid those deaths. Possibly, some people may have risk to die from those inoculations, but if the flu largely spread in that area then ultimately it will cause death to many people which anyone can't even think of. Thus, in order to save life of many people from cow flu, this step should be taken in order to save most of the lives.
Furthermore, the author failed to mention the details about the people who had cow flu in that area. If the number of people were high then inoculations should be administered at its best, but if the number of people were low, say one or two, then risking the life of other people due to inoculations should be avoided. Hence, if the author had provided such information, then the argument could have been analyzed effectively.
Finally, the author failed to mention the exact time when the survey has been done. Possibly, the survey has done a long time ago or may it could be be done recently. If the survey has been done a long time ago, then possibly that the scientists have found the cure of inoculation so that no one could die while administration. Additionally, there may be some other cure which scientists have found later to cure the cow flu. We don't really know. Therefore, we need to know the validity of survey from the author in order to make the argument more cogent.
In conclusion, the author's argument in unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author should provide necessary details, perhaps by the way of reliable analysis about the validity of the survey. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know about why the author have mentioned only inoculation as the cure of cow flu without any further analysis of other possible cure.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 440 350
No. of Characters: 2047 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.58 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.652 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.559 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.507 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.864 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.549 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.152 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 459, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ovides little creditable support to the authors argument. Hence the authors argument in...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 477, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...itable support to the authors argument. Hence the authors argument in incomplete and ...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 487, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...port to the authors argument. Hence the authors argument in incomplete and unsubstantia...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...cause death to many people which anyone cant even think of. Thus, in order to save l...
^^^^
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'anyone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'cants'.
Suggestion: cants
...cause death to many people which anyone cant even think of. Thus, in order to save l...
^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: be
...as done a long time ago or may it could be be done recently. If the survey has been d...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 431, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ve found later to cure the cow flu. We dont really know. Therefore, we need to know...
^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ment more cogent. In conclusion, the authors argument in unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, really, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2106.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79726651481 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65129276276 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444191343964 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.6154651534 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.7272727273 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9545454545 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36363636364 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => 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: 0.287492434135 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0870382729895 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0822972439442 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164286831064 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10466038769 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.56 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.13 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.