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.
The author here makes two claims. First, that many lives could be saved in the areas where cow flu disease was detected if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered. Second, that we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of these inoculations. In my view, I feel that both the claims made by the author are unsubstantial and require a close scrutiny.
Firstly, the author claims that many lives could be saved if the vaccinations against cow flu were administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, the author overlooks the fact that the world is huge and the disease could have been widespread to the large parts of the world and as it is widespread disease it could have been that the vaccinations against cow flu were available only in fewer areas where the disease is detected. Or, it could have been that the vaccination against cow flu were discovered recently and needed some time to reach out to the other parts of the world where disease is detected. Also, it could have been that vaccinations developed against cow flu were ineffective and didn't make a person immune to cow flu. Therefore, just on the assumption that if the vaccinations against cow flu were routinely administered many lives could have been saved make the authors claim unsubstantial.
Secondly, on the other side the author claims that we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be administered routinely as there is a small possibility that a person will die. However, we cannot just assume that as a person is once vaccinated the chances of his death decrease because any disease makes advancements as years pass by. Therefore, there are regular advancements of a vaccination of a particular disease. Therefore, we need to take those vaccinations regularly as they are developed as per latest advancement. Also, it could be that the number of deaths due to cow flu disease have remain unchanged after vaccination process thus rendering the vaccination process futile. Hence, we need to permit routine administration of inoculations against cow flu disease.
Finally, the claims made by author rest on certain doubtful assumptions. First, whether the vaccinations are effective to make a person immune against cow flu disease. Second, whether the vaccinations against the cow flu disease are readily available in the world.
Third, whether vaccinations against cow flu reduced the number of deaths due to cow flu disease.
In sum, the author should verify certain assumption that vaccinations are readily available everywhere in the world an also they are effective in preventing cow flu disease.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 450 350
No. of Characters: 2236 1500
No. of Different Words: 155 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.606 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.969 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.853 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.987 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.9 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.421 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.594 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.237 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 454, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
... author are unsubstantial and require a close scrutiny. Firstly, the author claims that man...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 727, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ed against cow flu were ineffective and didnt make a person immune to cow flu. Theref...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 602, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'remained'.
Suggestion: remained
...r of deaths due to cow flu disease have remain unchanged after vaccination process thu...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, i feel, as a result, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2295.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11135857461 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91604712525 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.360801781737 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 743.4 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3033452876 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.75 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.45 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.7 5.70786347227 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451557936813 0.218282227539 207% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.170885629918 0.0743258471296 230% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.158648129522 0.0701772020484 226% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242321868427 0.128457276422 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.159142290035 0.0628817314937 253% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.98 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.