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 argument posits that lives of many people might have been saved if they were regularly vaccinated against cow flu, but the possibility of death will vaccination , the people were not given vaccination. Such conclusion is flawed due to unsupported assumptions emphasised as under.
Firstly the argument fails to provide the reports of patients that undergone cow flu treatment. How many people actually died during the treatment? It may be the case there were no fatalities. It is possible also that 3 people died out of 1000 people undertaken vaccination. Under such results not given inoculation to all the people will be more egregious. The argument must support its reason with medical reports of people.
Second reason of death might be lack of cautiousness by the doctors during the treatment. They might have used malicious infected surgery instruments. The dose of vaccination given to patients was not regulated resulting into death due to overdose. The patient condition of cow flu ameliorated after inoculation but the patient might have other disease like diabetes of which doctors failed to detect it before vaccination, that got adverse by side effect of vaccination ultimately leading to death.
Lastly what were the chances that people will be successfully diagnosed against the cow flu. The argument provides no efficacy reports of the medicines to be used for inoculation. It must provide the lab reports of how much effective the medicines are against the flu. If ineffective medicines are given to the patient there is no chance of survival of the patient. Doctors must provide the reason of death of patient while inoculating them for the flu. If the reason is specific to certain patients only for example people suffering from heart diseases will have high chances of death then rest of the people can be vaccinated.
In conclusion, the argument must provide the supporting evidence regarding the reason of possibility of death before concluding not to permit the inoculations against the cow flu.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 327 350
No. of Characters: 1669 1500
No. of Different Words: 153 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.252 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.104 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.211 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.433 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 165, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...he possibility of death will vaccination , the people were not given vaccination. ...
^^
Line 7, column 270, 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.
...tive the medicines are against the flu. If ineffective medicines are given to the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1708.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 327.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22324159021 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80991064954 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483180428135 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.7166568615 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.8947368421 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2105263158 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270240650605 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0909225422392 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.077870583754 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171642205812 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562238868916 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.