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.
When discussing the need to inoculation different populations, many other factors must be weighed. One such factor is overall safety, both of the vaccine and the disease itself. Additionally, scientists must speak on the necessity of the vaccine. Before a determination is made regarding the course of action, it is important to know more about the populations that are effected, namely those at risk of dying due to the vaccine. While it is easier to caution against the administration of preventative measures, more information is needed to make an informed decision.
Because the primary goal is to increase overall survival of a population, elaboration on safety is imperative. While very few individuals would wish to get sick, the mortality of cow flu is important to this debate, especially when compared to the mortality of the vaccine. As a society, we must proceed with whatever action will have the least mortality. If the disease has a higher mortality rate than the inoculation, then administering preventative shots would prove to be the safer option. However if the opposite proved true, and the prophylaxis caused more deaths than the illness, then it would be wise to avoid administration. These facts must be debated in order to make an informed decision regarding inoculation legislature.
When weighing the pros and cons to the argument, the necessity of the shots must also be determined. Due to the slight mortality rates triggered by vaccination, it may be possible to avoid this action in favor of less risky preventative measures. For example, signs indicating the presence of the virus at fault could be posted with tips on how to avoid contracting the illness, like frequent hand washing. If no such measures exist that would lessen the likelihood of contracting the malady, then we must also determine if there are changes that could be made to the vaccine to limit the mortality whilst simultaneously maintaining the protection conveyed. By lessening the deleterious side-effects of the vaccine without impacting the coverage, the mortality of the flu could surpass that of the prevention and routine administration should be implemented. Without knowing how necessary the vaccine is in prevention of the disease, an informed decision could not be made.
Additionally, the population that is succumbing to the vaccine is also of the utmost importance. Should that demographic include a high proportion of children or elderly individuals or persons with weakened immune systems, this subset could be exempted from the vaccination schedule. The herd immunity conveyed by healthier individuals could be sufficient in their protection. However, if there is no correlation to those killed by administration of the shot, then there is no way to circumvent the deaths brought about by this action. In order to make a statement regarding the safety of preventative measures, more knowledge is needed regarding those negatively impacted.
Vaccine safety is one of the most prevalent issues that plagues the nation today. When determining whether to add another inoculation to the routine or not, it is imperative to discuss all of the possible ramifications. For this to happen, the safety of the population, necessity of the preventative measure, and the demographic of individuals negatively impacted must be illustrated. While some may consider omitting the shot from the roster to be the most responsible course of action, discussing all of the facts poses the greatest benefit to every society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 497, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ots would prove to be the safer option. However if the opposite proved true, and the pr...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 187, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ine or not, it is imperative to discuss all of the possible ramifications. For this to hap...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 501, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...esponsible course of action, discussing all of the facts poses the greatest benefit to eve...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2970.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 560.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30357142857 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12551220292 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471428571429 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 964.8 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.471057884232 637% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 12.0 2.70958083832 443% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1912630876 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.230769231 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5384615385 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.42307692308 5.70786347227 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128665367309 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0357942932843 0.0743258471296 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0289397759644 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0743127554697 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255044074632 0.0628817314937 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 98.500998004 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.