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 given argument suggests that many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However as a contrast, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as an outcome of the inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. There is specific evidence needed to evaluate the argument which is expounded below.
Firstly, we need to know the mortality rate after being administered with the inoculations. This will indicate the possibility that a person will die as a result. If a greater proportion of patients die then we can definitely assume that the evidence has strengthened the argument. This will also suggest that an alternative approach needs to be employed to work against cow flu. However if the probability is negligible then we can undertake efforts to enhance its effect so as to augment its benefits.
Next, we need to consider the possible causes peripheral to the inoculations which might have resulted in deaths. If any of these causes can be mitigated then we can derive that the inoculations are innocuous and benign. However, if no discrepancies are found in the method of administration, the surrounding environment or any secondary cause then that would be in the favor of the opinion that the inoculations must be prohibited because of their harmful nature.
In addition, we must glean information about the other possible effects that the inoculation had on the administered patient. If any of these effects can be extrapolated to aggravate and cause death, then it would imply that the inoculations have side-effects which result in death. If we can overcome these side-effects then the inoculation would be considered to act as an anodyne.
We also need to analyse when the inoculation was administered, i.e. at which stage of the disease. This can further be bolstered by adjoining information that indicates the impact of the inoculation. This will help highlight whether patient's health before administration results in the drug being ineffective and later on resulting in death.
Hence, from the above text we can infer that many evidences need to be considered before adjudicating whether to allow inoculations against cow flu or not. They are summarized below:
1. Mortality rate after being administered with the inoculations.
2. Peripheral causes which might have resulted in deaths.
3. Side-effects of inoculation.
4. The stage of disease when the inoculation was administered.
5. The method of administration used for inoculation.
The results of above evidences would highlight whether it is salubrious to continue with inoculations or an alternative needs to be implemented.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
don't' need a summary in the conclusion.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 440 350
No. of Characters: 2267 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.58 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.152 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.158 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.172 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.649 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.483 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.264 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.448 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 174, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...in areas where the disease is detected. However as a contrast, since there is a small p...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 164, 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.
...ity that a person will die as a result. If a greater proportion of patients die th...
^^
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...to be employed to work against cow flu. However if the probability is negligible then w...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 474, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...undertake efforts to enhance its effect so as to augment its benefits. Next, we need ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...f administration used for inoculation. The results of above evidences would highli...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, so, then, as to, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2338.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31363636364 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2215410049 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452272727273 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 759.6 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.0743447286 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.52 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.64 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 12.0 5.15768463074 233% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.412312811817 0.218282227539 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11429008069 0.0743258471296 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128600719444 0.0701772020484 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145036308953 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.158666874028 0.0628817314937 252% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.