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 permi

Essay topics:

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 argument is flawed based on several reasons, primarily because it made the unwarranted assumption that the small possible death was caused by the innoculations and nothing else, which makes its conclusion, that routine administration of the inoculations against cowflu should be rejected, invalid.

The author made a vague statement with the term "small possibility". Small is a relative term as regards life that could be damning like 2 deaths in 200 or also trivial as 1 death in 1000000. The small possibility might even be based on some complex calculations based on several factors and chain of events that might eventually lead to an death. Factors that might not be practical. For one the small possibility of death might occur when an innoculated person eats 80% carbohudrate for 10 consecutive days without water, doesnt sleep in 4 days, and doesnt pass out waste in 3 days and even more rare scenarios. What are the odds that a particular person might actually d=undergo these actions consecutively?. In order for the argument to be evaluated the author need to explain the explicit causes of the small possible death.

Also, the author makes the assumptions that the small possibility of death was caused by the inoculations. The possibility of death might be caused by side effect of a simultaneous administration of the inoculations and some other factors such as the persons diet, or usage of another ddrug that might react with tghe inoculations. Had the author for example mentioned a particular ingredient that is in the inoculation and also intrinsic and inherent in it, the argument might be more valid.

Even if there is an actual ratio for the small possible deaths, and it was caused by some ingredient in the inoculations, the author neglects the facts that the inoculations has been proved to save many lives if administered. Administering a drugs that has a 99% efficacy rate would be much more preferred than its rejection and thereafter death of the victims. Had the author argued that the administration should be made by qualified doctors or physicians and patients should be made to undergo several tests to determine if they were eligible for the inoculations, the argument might be more valid.

Because the author failed to explain the vague term 'small possibility', failed to consider the efficacy of the innoculatiosn and made the unwarranted assumptions of directly linking the small possible death to the inoculations, he does not make enough case to argue that routine administration of the innoculations should not be permitted .

Votes
Average: 6.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 349, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...of events that might eventually lead to an death. Factors that might not be practi...
^^
Line 3, column 535, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... for 10 consecutive days without water, doesnt sleep in 4 days, and doesnt pass out wa...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 563, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...hout water, doesnt sleep in 4 days, and doesnt pass out waste in 3 days and even more ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 804, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the author need to explain the explicit causes of the small possible death. A...
^^
Line 7, column 241, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a drug' or simply 'drugs'?
Suggestion: a drug; drugs
...ny lives if administered. Administering a drugs that has a 99% efficacy rate would be m...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 128, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er the efficacy of the innoculatiosn and made the unwarranted assumptions of dire...
^^
Line 9, column 236, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sible death to the inoculations, he does not make enough case to argue that routi...
^^
Line 9, column 340, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...he innoculations should not be permitted .
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, if, so, as regards, for example, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2171.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1567695962 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0926458487 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463182897862 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 676.8 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 82.8074070761 57.8364921388 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.733333333 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0666666667 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73333333333 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.20758483034 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217571344795 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0889262785537 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0347962740913 0.0701772020484 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138471178224 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0292576160919 0.0628817314937 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.3550499002 89% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.

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: 15 15
No. of Words: 422 350
No. of Characters: 2110 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.532 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.951 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.779 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5