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 author claims that it is wise to ban the adminstration of incoulations against cow flu in the areas where the disease is detected. He also mentions the reason to not permit, he states that though the possibility is small, there have been cases where in a person has died post inoculations. The author's argument might be valid. But it doesn't provide sufficient reasoning for the same. I substantiate my claim for the same with the below assumptions.
Firstly, the author himselves mentions affirmatively that the administering the vaccine would save many lives of people in the region where the flu has gone rampant. This implies that the vaccine has done it's work of saving the people. He is unsure of administering the vaccine because, in the recent past there have been cases where in few people have died post the vaccination. We are not sure what exactly caused the death of the people, it might have been the flu which was in the final stage and hence couldn't be controlled. It is not a wise decision to put the lives of the majority of the population at risk because the vaccine did not work for a few. Those might have been edge cases.
Author is more concerned about the catostrophic effect the vaccine had on a few people, then the positive effect it might have on the bigger population. It is possible that a person might die if the vaccine is administered, but it is a thorough fact that the one's infected the flu would die for sure if not vaccinated. It is important that the author looks at a bigger picture and look for measures to administer the vaccine in a controlled manner.
Most importantly, the second statement mentions a possible flaw in the vaccine. It is having a deadly outcome on a few people. The author does not intend to root cause this issue. He is only aware that he has to stop the administration of the vaccine. He is not taking steps towards performing a postmortem of the cause. It is possibly that the death was due to excessive dosage of the vaccine or an allergy which the person had for the vaccine or as mentioned earlier, the person would have already been the final stages of the flu. If the reason for deaths were found, research would have helped to find the solution to this issue. For example, determining the optimal amount of the vaccine or finding if the person had any allergy for the vaccine, and if he had, to find an alternative for the vaccine. This is a major result which the author has failed to mention.
Though the intentions of the author are naive in the statement he makes, it is important to note that he has failed to substantiate his opinion. This might be a valid claim, but the chances of it being invalid is also high. Author would have to work on the above points and reframe the claim in order to build a strong argument supporting his claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 299, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... person has died post inoculations. The authors argument might be valid. But it doesnt ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...authors argument might be valid. But it doesnt provide sufficient reasoning for the sa...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 508, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
... which was in the final stage and hence couldnt be controlled. It is not a wise decisio...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, second, so, then, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2329.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 509.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.57563850688 5.05705443957 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58560201696 2.79657885939 92% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 215.323595506 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43025540275 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 739.8 704.065955056 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 18.0 6.24550561798 288% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.0559395701 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.5769230769 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5769230769 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07692307692 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190470254871 0.243740707755 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0542542387378 0.0831039109588 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619674134134 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115812449502 0.150359130593 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662789588615 0.0667264976115 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.1392134831 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.8420337079 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.28 12.1639044944 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.46 8.38706741573 89% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 100.480337079 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => 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.