The argument expressed therein seems, in my opinion, extremely vague and, thus, some aspects of it should be gingerly discussed before taking part in any of the possible positions that could exist.
Health issues and diseases are considered to be one of the most dangerous problems since the very beginning of human existence. In this regard, it could be easily noted that most of the revolutionary inventions and developments that had occurred through history are related with the relentless interest in improving health conditions. Hence, one of the most important developments has been the creation of the inoculation, as a measure that could prevent people from suddenly dying. The results have always been successful, since they have saved plenty of lives from deaths. Many people argue however, that several risks are related with inoculations, and, thus, could be counterproductive. This is the author position. Conversely to this idea, I truly believe that this assumption is unsound and could be extremely dangerous if taking it into consideration.
First of all, the text lacks strong evidence to support that the number of deceased people due to inoculation risks is bigger than the one related with the cow flu. For example, it could be true that during this decade five people in the world have died after taking an inoculation. However, if the number of peopled affected by the cow flu were one hundred times bigger than the number of people affected by inoculations, it could be extremely irresponsible to deny these patients a vaccine, which could save them from dying. Furthermore, it should never be forgotten the fact that every disease in the world carries side effects but are approved by public organizations to be used, despite its problems. Thus, it could be inferred that the side effects of the vaccine are not as dangerous as denying their use.
Another aspect that the text avoids to address is why inoculations must be “routinely administered to all people”. On the one hand, there’s no evidence to support this fact, which is used as a counter-argument. It could be possible that some groups of population weren’t recommended to take the inoculation, since they are, for example, allergic. In this regard, it could be as well possible to believe that these deceases provoked by inoculations could have happened to these population groups that weren’t supposed the have the vaccine administered, but who eventually had it. To sum up, much more evidence would be necessary to consider plausible the analogous relation between inoculation and death risk.
Furthermore, even if one person would have side effects after taking an inoculation, the text doesn’t explain if there could be any possible solution to save these people from death. Thus, it could be considered a fallacy the analogous, direct, and unavoidable relation between taking an inoculation and consequently dying, without any possible solution to lessen these side effects.
Because of all the abovementioned reasons herein, I believe that the author falls into many weak assumptions, which should be way more complex to be considered sound. As this doesn’t happen, it could have extremely dangerous consequences for society to deprive cow flu patients from an inoculation that could save them from death, since this decision is also opposite to what medicine should be: a space, in which lives matter the most.
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 70
- "Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected.However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations,we cannot perm 66
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the introduction is too long.
-----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 555 350
No. of Characters: 2780 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.854 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.009 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.779 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.227 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.15 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.54 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 722, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Conversely,
...roductive. This is the author position. Conversely to this idea, I truly believe that this...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 293, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended taking'.
Suggestion: recommended taking
... some groups of population weren't recommended to take the inoculation, since they are, for ex...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 128, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean ''?
... many weak assumptions, which should be way more complex to be considered sound. As...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, conversely, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, thus, well, for example, first of all, in my opinion, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2911.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2831215971 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97075844077 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464609800363 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 920.7 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.22255489022 284% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7203206401 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.318181818 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0454545455 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.54545454545 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245441201539 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0806998353861 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522682643521 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136566692506 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0531843457275 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.