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.
Inoculations are important in order to ensure the health of a population by preventing the spread of infectious diseases, such as the flu. The primary premise of inoculation is based off the concept of herd immunity, in which having a certain proportion of an entire population be immune to a certain disease can result in the disease dying out. In other words, you do not need to immunize an entire population in order to cause a disease (such as the cow flu) to die out. As a result, there is a lot of scientific premise in order to evaluate whether or not to inoculate a given population for the cow flu.
The strongest evidence one can utilize to evaluate the impact of inoculating a population for cow flu is scientific reports, which can come from a wide variety of sources. Such sources can include epidemiological reports that can analyze the impact that the potential vaccine may have in a given population, clinical trials, which may look at any side effects of the potential vaccine as well as present safe limits on vaccine dosage for individuals. The primary benefit for using these pieces of literature is the fact science is highly dependent on having large amounts of data related to the potential vaccine. On the other hand, using the vast away of scientific literature does contain its own set of issues. For one, biases in epidemiological and scientific studies are subject to biases, which can affect conclusions that different reports can make on the impact of the vaccine. The methods that were used to execute the study may not necessarily be generalizable for the population of interest (i.e. the population with a high prevalence of cow flu). However, it is important to note, that especially if a study is reproduced and the association between a vaccine and death is studied multiple times, the issues that scientific reports may inherently present can be mitigated, which would strengthen the evidence for administering (or not administering) the potential vaccine against cow flu.
Another piece of evidence that may be of potential use is the collection of personal anecdotes and qualitative research, which scientific reports may not necessarily capture. This piece of evidence can go both ways, however. On the one hand, these anecdotes may share experiences of how inoculation against cow flu has benefited individuals themselves. On the other hand, such anecdotes, especially the ones that discuss death caused by the inoculation, can strengthen the action of not administering the inoculation to the population of interest. Furthermore, the biggest weight that this piece of evidence can provide, even if it may not necessarily be based on huge amounts of data and studies, is the influence these anecdotes can have on public opinion, as that public opinion can pressure those in power to make that decision whether or not to administer the inoculation against cow flu or not, especially given the fact there is that possibility of death caused by the administration of the inoculation.
The claims that these two pieces of evidence can provide can influence decisions to administer the inoculation among the population or not. Thus, it is important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis with all potential pieces of evidence. On the one hand, scientific and epidemiological reports on the efficiency of the vaccine (among other things) are objective and are based off of huge amounts of data that can help influence public health intervention. On the other hand, personal anecdotes are subjective and put a human face to the issue at hand, which can sway the public to take on certain opinions, and subsequently, influence the decisions to implement the inoculation against cow flu in that population. Utilizing both pieces of evidence (as well as any others) ensures that the decision to inoculate a population against cow flu are valid, especially considering the risk of death that can occur with the inoculation.
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 62
- 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 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 650 350
No. of Characters: 3234 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.049 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.975 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.948 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 233 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 195 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 128 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 103 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.952 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.411 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 543, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...scientific premise in order to evaluate whether or not to inoculate a given population for the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...not administering the inoculation to the population of interest. Furthermore, the...
^^
Line 5, column 834, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...re those in power to make that decision whether or not to administer the inoculation against c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 745, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...tion. Utilizing both pieces of evidence as well as any others ensures that the decision to...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, look, may, so, then, thus, well, such as, as a result, as well as, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 99.0 55.5748502994 178% => OK
Nominalization: 41.0 16.3942115768 250% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3299.0 2260.96107784 146% => OK
No of words: 650.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07538461538 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04926703274 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00330429467 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.38 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1106.1 705.55239521 157% => 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
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 88.8201066081 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.095238095 119.503703932 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.9523809524 23.324526521 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.149831162931 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0586268058595 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0419567488307 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110978938828 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0304514874963 0.0628817314937 48% => 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: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.78 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.