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.

Before the statement can be regarded as true, there are parts of the statement that need to be re-visited,and the evidence in which this statement is based on must also be explored.

The first sentence states that , "many lives MIGHT be saved....". The usage of the word, might calls for uncertainty. It is here where more research must be done. A large-scale campaign for inoculation could not and would not proceed unless the evidence of efficacy was sound. Before this campaign would even be marketed, there needs to be a study to test whether these particular inoculations against cow flu are in fact 'life-saving'. Questions to ask during experimentation: (1) How deadly is the disease? (2) Are these inoculations necessary? or (3) Are there less controversial and more easier preventative measures available? (4) Are there any side effects that come along with the inoculation?If these inoculations were deemed to be necessary, safe, and guaranteed to be 'life-saving' than this statement and this campaign could follow through. However, it is not worth inoculating hundreds or even thousands of people without sound evidence. I
Again, in the first sentence, it states, "to all people in areas where the disease is detected." This statement cannot be rendered as true without understanding the context of the inoculation as well as the nature of the disease. Questions to answer before moving forward: (1) Why inoculate only those in the detected areas? (2) How does the disease spread? (3) Is it necessary to inoculate all people or just those in close contact with the disease? (4) Is this the only preventative measure that can be executed? The study of the disease, its spread, its effect on humans and its surrounds are necessary to validate this statement.

In the second sentence, it states. "there is a SMALL possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations". Where is the evidence that proves this? Where is the evidence that proves this? This study would need to be further looked into. How was this study done? Was it executed by a credible source? Was it reviewed by several experts? Was their a big enough sample size? and the big question is what exactly is the chance of death with this inoculation?
The second analysis of this statement, on a more sociopolitical standpoint, is to explore the decision-making process to not permit this inoculation. Who decided to on this decision to not give anyone a 'life-saving' inoculation, who is the "we" in the statement? What do the population affected feel about this decision? What are their opinions of the risk factor that inoculation has? The statement could be totally disregarding the general public, however there is not enough evidence to prove otherwise. Clarification of the social context is needed.

If in fact, this research validated that this inoculation was necessary and its usage was discussed amongst all stakeholder groups, it would strengthen and uphold the statement. However, the statement is completely weakened by its lack of evidence and context. Knowing this research information would help make a better decision on how to move forward in combating this disease.

Votes
Average: 5.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 106, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , and
...the statement that need to be re-visited,and the evidence in which this statement is...
^^^^
Line 3, column 31, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ored. The first sentence states that , 'many lives MIGHT be saved....&apo...
^^
Line 3, column 552, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Or
...se? 2 Are these inoculations necessary? or 3 Are there less controversial and more...
^^
Line 3, column 590, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'easier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: easier
...? or 3 Are there less controversial and more easier preventative measures available? 4 Are ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 701, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: If
...ts that come along with the inoculation?If these inoculations were deemed to be ne...
^^
Line 6, column 361, 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.
...ce? Was it reviewed by several experts? Was their a big enough sample size? and the...
^^^
Line 6, column 365, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
...Was it reviewed by several experts? Was their a big enough sample size? and the big q...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 397, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...ts? Was their a big enough sample size? and the big question is what exactly is the...
^^^
Line 7, column 443, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ement could be totally disregarding the general public, however there is not enough evidence t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, look, regarding, second, so, then, well, in fact, as a result, as well as

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 45.0 19.6327345309 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 16.3942115768 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2683.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14971209213 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1192075395 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479846449136 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 863.1 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 7.0 0.471057884232 1486% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 36.0 19.7664670659 182% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.0870069516 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.5277777778 119.503703932 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.4722222222 23.324526521 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.75 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 18.0 4.67664670659 385% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199805665148 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049481807272 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0551287929741 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10129798933 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0681593939735 0.0628817314937 108% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 48.3550499002 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.