"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 the person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot pe

The author seems to assume that small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, they cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered, even the inoculations save many lives. However; careful scrutiny of the author's evidence reveals that it lends no credible support to the author's conclusion.

At first sight, the actual number of people who have been saved from cow flu had not been mentioned in the passage, likewise how many people died from the inoculations either. To arbitrate between inoculations are beneficial or not we need an exact number. If the ratio of saving many lives is the way higher than small possibility of dying from inoculations, then we should think to give a better solution for saving people's life.

Next, the author did not mention, how frequently did these people get flu shot? His claim includes very vague ideas. Maybe, they need to adjust days as well, to get shot. It could be days are too soon to get another inoculation, and then another one. He never mentioned clearly about duration between inoculations. For that matter, we can raise a question that is there any chance that those people may die from frequency of vaccination? What is the exact time slot for inoculations, only saying routinely is not enough clear to extract an assertation.

In an any event, the author cannot justify the conclusion that we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administrated. Because, it fails to address the exact reason of dying. Does it really consequence of inoculations? Those people who died from vaccination, have any other disease, do they use any other medicine? If yes, is anyone investigate that is there any reaction between medicine and inoculation? It could be the reason of dying; it may give more clear state. Moreover, is there any age limit? Those people who died from inoculations are they all same age, are they old, is inoculation the exact reason for dying? The threshold problem with the argument is that author draws a general conclusion without answering many questions.

In conclusion, the argument of small possibility of dying from the inoculations, which shouldn't be permitted routinely, is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument the author must provide clear evidence about exact numbers. The author must also provide strong evidence of investigating the exact reason of dying. Finally, to better evaluate the argument we would need more information about why inoculations are the reason of small probability of dying.