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 author of the statement proposes that since inoculation against cow flu might be fatal to some, it is best not to administer it to people routinely, even if there is chance to save lives of many. The author's argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions, which depend of specific evidence to support them. The deficiencies in the argument need to be addressed before considering the argument seriously.
First, the author states that many lives might be saved if the inoculation against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in affected areas. Here the author fails to provide any data support the presupposition that routine administering of inoculations to all people will be fruitful in fighting the disease. It may be the case that only people working with cows or have cow nearby are affected by disease and they are the ones should be targeted first for administering the inoculations. If this is true then authors suggestion to inoculate all people is disastrous and would weaken the argument. In addition, no data is presents to back up another claim that many lives might be saved. Was there a study conducted that conclusively proved that inoculations will save lives? Furthermore, what is the effectiveness of the inoculations? The term "many lives" is a vague term and should not carry any significance when it comes to matter of lives of people. Above-mentioned evidence should be provided by the author to strengthen.
Second, the author states that there may be a small chance the person administered with inoculation might die. This reason is used to support the conclusion that inoculations should not be permitted. The author, here, uses the term "small possibility" and invites us to believe that administering inoculation regularly will cause more evil than good. The argument might be helped with statistical data such as how many people who were administered inoculation died as a result of inoculation only? Perhaps they succumbed to other medical complexities. We just do not know. A statistical data of how many people were inoculated and how many of them died directly because of the inoculations should done. If it has been done then data must be cited. If many people died as a result of inoculation, then it might strengthen author argument.
Thirdly, Other invites us to believe that administering inoculation is the only way. Perhaps there are ways through which the cow flu can be fought. the author does not present any data for this ass
In conclusion, the author has failed to provide evidence to back up his claims. Thus, it can be said that the argument is not well though, since it lacks the depth of detail necessary to evaluate the argument. The author should consider at least above-mentioned points ans present relevant data to strengthen their argument.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2306 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.938 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.89 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.962 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.481 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.46 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 205, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...re is chance to save lives of many. The authors argument is based on several unwarrante...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 318, 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.
...d of specific evidence to support them. The deficiencies in the argument need to be...
^^^
Line 3, column 383, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'cowed'.
Suggestion: cowed
...t only people working with cows or have cow nearby are affected by disease and they...
^^^
Line 5, column 126, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...th inoculation might die. This reason is used to support the conclusion that inoc...
^^
Line 5, column 709, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have done' or 'do'?
Suggestion: have done; do
...ctly because of the inoculations should done. If it has been done then data must be ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 715, 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.
...ecause of the inoculations should done. If it has been done then data must be cite...
^^
Line 7, column 150, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...hrough which the cow flu can be fought. the author does not present any data for th...
^^^
Line 9, column 263, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'points'' or 'point's'?
Suggestion: points'; point's
...hould consider at least above-mentioned points ans present relevant data to strengthen...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, if, may, second, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, at least, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2387.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 467.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1113490364 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02930887492 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460385438972 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 768.6 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.8021456079 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.8076923077 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9615384615 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11538461538 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37520561225 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110224796927 0.0743258471296 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101114098792 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192332521541 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122386566171 0.0628817314937 195% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.