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.
Cow flu inoculations when routinely administered to people where it is detected at any scale is an aggressive and imprudent approach when the possibility of a person dying as a result of the inoculation is accounted for. The decisive factors that can be used are the the frequency and rate of spread.
Given that a certain location has an outbreak of disease, the number of people affected, if small can be isolated and the outbreak can be curbed without the need of administering inoculations to all the people in the area. One might argues that frequency might not be enough as population density and activities that people might be involved will differ from place to place and a cogent argument it is. This is where the rate of spread of the flu comes in.
Let's consider four scenarios with all possible combinations of these two factors. In the first scenario, a population segment where the flu is spreading at an alarming rate, irrespective of the number of already infected individuals, inoculations must be administered to all individuals within a defined predicted geographical boundary. In the second scenario, the number of cases of flu are high, but these numbers are increasing very slowly. One might conclude that if the inoculations are required only for the people closely in contact with the infected individuals. In the third scenario, when both of these factors are high points to an impending epidemic and hence inoculations for the entire population is necessary, especially when occurrences are geographically sporadic. Fourth and final scenario is when both of these factors are low, in which case it is imprudent to administer and risk the lives of many rather than inoculate those specific set of individuals in close contact with the infected individuals wherever they might be.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 20 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 298 350
No. of Characters: 1485 1500
No. of Different Words: 145 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.155 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.983 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.931 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.091 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.309 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 424, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ministrative, accounting inefficiencies dont vary much through industries and such p...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, still, with respect to, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1923.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 349.0 442.535393258 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5100286533 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.55969084622 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02862754229 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601719197708 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 594.0 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 20.2370786517 64% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.9114048177 60.3974514979 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.923076923 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8461538462 23.4991977007 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76923076923 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338678238876 0.243740707755 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121708161856 0.0831039109588 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136875246136 0.0758088955206 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195613293395 0.150359130593 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101320652197 0.0667264976115 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.8420337079 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.1639044944 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.