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 has suggested that we cannot permit the routine inoculations against cow flu, since there is a "small possibility" that a person might die as a result. This suggests that the author is clearly forgetting the bigger picture, that is, the "many lives" which might be saved by the inoculations!
One of the major assumptions that the author has followed is that, the inoculation, although characterized with only a small possibility of debilitating the patient, is still capable of killing all the patients being administered
Firstly, the author has completely abandoned the plan of saving "many lives", due to the fact that there is a "small possibility" that the person might die. The fact that the possibility is small would suggest that more often than not, the administration of the inoculation would be effective, and possibly save several lives. What might strengthen the the author's stance would be if, studies proved there was a higher chance of dying from the inoculation. Only then does it make sense to abandon the plan of saving these lives.
Although, another factor which might strengthen the author's argument would be that, if another newly discovered vaccine was released which had close to 'zero' chances of causing death to the person being administered. In this case, we would obviously opt for the new vaccine and abandon the old inoculation as suggested by the author.
The given argument is not cogent, and thus may not be accepted by the public. Hence, the author must convey the true potency of this inoculation, else, provide us with an alternate solution. Only then can he convince us, that pulling out from the plan of "routine administration", was the right decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 105, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...lations against cow flu, since there is a 'small possibility' that a pe...
^
Line 5, column 119, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...es', due to the fact that there is a 'small possibility' that the ...
^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ve several lives. What might strengthen the the authors stance would be if, studies pro...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ve several lives. What might strengthen the the authors stance would be if, studies pro...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 378, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...al lives. What might strengthen the the authors stance would be if, studies proved ther...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 53, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...other factor which might strengthen the authors argument would be that, if another newl...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, still, then, thus, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1486.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 282.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2695035461 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14995830322 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.553191489362 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 135.684339553 57.8364921388 235% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 148.6 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24863368614 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0965398591616 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101958969315 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140897386482 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0973020766927 0.0628817314937 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => 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: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 32.5 12.3882235529 262% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.