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 passage above states that inoculations against cow flu may lead to saving many lives if administered routinely in areas where the disease has been detected. The author states that due to a small possibility of death due to these inoculations, their routine administration cannot be permitted. Close scrutiny to the facts stated by the author, it is felt that the argument provided lacks a credible support for the author's assumptions.
The author assumes that there is a small possibility of death due to the inoculations, but no evidence for this statement has been provided. If this has been a result of a survey in an area, there is a possibility that the people in that area have dies, not due to the inoculations, but due to some other disease, current endemic in that area.
Let us assume that these inoculations do lead to death, but what is the ratio of the death and saved lives? It may happen that among millions of people, these inoculations lead to the death of only one or two people and save the life of thousands. In such a case, the routine administration of these inoculations would highly be recommended.
This passage assumes that the people who shall take the inoculations against cow-flu, will have a small possibility of death, but what is the cause of their death? There is no evidence that the people who die have the same body as those who live. It may be the case, that people containing some types of chemicals in their body, are at risk, due to a chemical reaction with these inoculations. This maybe due to the consumption of drugs, cigarettes or any other items. If the situation is such, people with no such history can be provided with the inoculations, to ensure their safety against cow-flu.
Thus, the assumptions made in the above argument can be said to be lacking in evidence and substance. The author fails to convince me that this decision is thoughtful and beneficial to the people worldwide. To strengthen his argument, the author must provide evidence about his assertions, through rigorous surveys and research on the same.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 357 350
No. of Characters: 1675 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.347 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.692 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.719 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 102 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 77 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.312 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.282 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.602 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 298, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
...ine administration cannot be permitted. Close scrutiny to the facts stated by the author, it i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, may, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1729.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8431372549 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81982828431 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473389355742 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.185982974 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 108.0625 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3125 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.75 5.70786347227 31% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29515728519 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0979807324152 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0912885435188 0.0701772020484 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158577844304 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0810038818819 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.