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 mentions that inoculations against cow flu are routinely required in areas affected by cow flu but should not be permitted as they have a small probability of being deleterious for humans.The statement is very brief and requires details in multiple avenues to be a thorough review on the same. The assumption made in the statement must be strengthened with the help of supporting evidence.
The first point to be elaborated on is the relationship between the death of a person and inoculations administered. A scientific reason must be involved, explaining the reason and chances of such a harmful effect occurring on an individual.There might have been another reason for the death which may not have been noticed. Moreover the author suggests many lives might be saved but it is hard to infer what exactly is the number or proportion represented by the word 'many'.
The small possibility that a person may die due to the inoculation may be because of the frequency in dosage. If however the dosage is reduced or not so frequent it may not be so harmful. Better statistics with a varied and completely representational sample from the history may be used to support the statement. For example, numbers illustrating the probabilities of either saving the life or resulting in death could be mentioned.
Furthermore the explanation about how effective the inoculations are against cow flu in humans must be provided. It would increase the credibility of the author's argument. The author must be able to quantify the effects of the disease and the the potential for disastrous outcome of the vaccine.
To sum up, the author's argument cannot be considered invalid, however it does require a more thorough explanation to support the decision made. The discontinuity in the statement can be justly put forward to strengthen it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 200, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...ability of being deleterious for humans.The statement is very brief and requires de...
^^^
Line 1, column 306, 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.
...es to be a thorough review on the same. The assumption made in the statement must b...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, 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.
...ith the help of supporting evidence. The first point to be elaborated on is the ...
^^^
Line 3, column 242, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: There
...rmful effect occurring on an individual.There might have been another reason for the ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... death which may not have been noticed. Moreover the author suggests many lives might be...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...sulting in death could be mentioned. Furthermore the explanation about how effective the...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 155, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t would increase the credibility of the authors argument. The author must be able to qu...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 240, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...quantify the effects of the disease and the the potential for disastrous outcome of the...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 240, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...quantify the effects of the disease and the the potential for disastrous outcome of the...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...come of the vaccine. To sum up, the authors argument cannot be considered invalid, ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'for example', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.201863354037 0.25644967241 79% => OK
Verbs: 0.198757763975 0.15541462614 128% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0869565217391 0.0836205057962 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.055900621118 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0186335403727 0.0272364105082 68% => OK
Prepositions: 0.11801242236 0.125424944231 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0807453416149 0.0416121511921 194% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 3.09721511238 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.027950310559 0.026700313972 105% => OK
Particles: 0.00310559006211 0.001811407834 171% => OK
Determiners: 0.142857142857 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0496894409938 0.0255425247493 195% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.00931677018634 0.0127820249294 73% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1841.0 2731.13054187 67% => OK
No of words: 303.0 446.07635468 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.07590759076 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.372937293729 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.303630363036 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.221122112211 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.158415841584 0.135150697306 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09721511238 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 207.018472906 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551155115512 0.469332199767 117% => OK
Word variations: 57.610062931 52.1807786196 110% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 20.039408867 70% => OK
Sentence length: 21.6428571429 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6485027268 57.7814097925 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.5 141.986410481 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6428571429 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.785714285714 0.724660767414 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 3.58251231527 279% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 52.0058934465 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.46590909091 1.8405768891 80% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422266173839 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.106926854738 0.135418324435 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.046177632646 0.0829849096947 56% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.681726445055 0.58762219726 116% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.103736799473 0.147661913831 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194786529504 0.193483328276 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0737906269636 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.452557251497 0.42659136922 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0340803709344 0.0774707102158 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.278681733376 0.312017818177 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487816187107 0.0698173142475 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 11.0 14.657635468 75% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.