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 person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permit

The given argument suggests that inoculations against cow flu cannot be routinely administered due to the possibility of death due to the inoculations. While this concern is not without its strengths, it needs to be evaluated in the light of further facts and evidence.

The argument mentions that there is a "small possibility" of deaths. This vague claim needs to be quantified to get a better insight into the relative success and failure of the inoculation. Moreover, the argument needs to cite previous studies that establish that there exists a chance of death after inoculations. Apart from theoretical evidence, empirical evidence on this is also called for. For instance, if the success rate of the inoculation is statistically and significantly higher than its failure rate, its administration might be a step in the right direction.

In addition to quantification, the argument also needs to clarify the phrase "administration". Does the inocululation package consist of dosage which needs to be delivered in sequence and at a stipulated time? If so, it is possible that the deaths that might happen if all dosages are not given in the correct amount/correct time etc. It follows that simply assuming that deaths can occur despite the " routine administration" of the inoculation might be ignoring the fact that the "inaccurate" administration, and not the administration of the drug can result in death.

Finally, the claim that a person may die "as a result" of inoculations needs to be supported by robust evidence. If the inoculations are administered in an area where the disease has already been detected (as mentioned in the first sentence of the argument), it might be difficult to attribute an observed death to the intervention--the victim might have picked up the infection from another vector or patient, which caused the death. Thus, it needs to be ascertained that the death was unambiguously "due to" the inoculation, and the individual who died was otherwise healthy. Analogously, it is also possible that someone who has already contracted the disease and is at a severe stage might die even without the inoculation. It is, therefore, crucial to evaluate whether the inoculation can "cause" the death in a patient.

In sum, since human lives cannot be experimented with, the concern posed by the argument is valid. However, evidence from studies and clarification on certain terms is required to strengthen the claim asserted. Further trials of the drug combined with more research can give an insight into the relative benefits and threats of the inoculation.