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 of the argument recommends that inoculation against cow flu should not be permitted. To support this recommendation the author cites that there is slight possibility of the person dying as a result of inoculation. On the basis of this recommendation the author infers that inoculation should not be permitted to perform routinely checkup. The argument is flawed in many critical respects and fails to make a cogent case.
Firstly, the author does not provide any statistics about how many people were infected with cow flu and how many lives have been saved in the past and how many died. Due to the lack of this information no strong decision can be made as to how inoculation will help or affected the people in the area where disease is detected. It is not necessary that many people lost their lives because of inoculation. There could be any number of possibilities. If this is the case then the argument fails it's purpose to stop routinely checkups. Inoculation may in fact help people saves their lives.
Moreover, the insidious effects of the flu are not mentioned. What if this flu is contagious? If this is the case then authority must take immediate action to preclude this flu before it causes incorrigible harm to the people. There is no evidence if there is cure available or not. Performing a routinely checkup though have a slight possibility that the person might loose his life but there is a possibility of saving multiple other lives if the disease is destructive and if the cure has been discovered then the life of the affected person can also be saved.
The author claims that many lives "might" be saved ,if there is even a smallest possibility of saving a life which in this case would be saving more lives than the lives lost then inoculations should be routinely administered.
In conclusion, had the author provided more information about the flu, it's harmful effects or information about any alternative method which is better than suggested method where there is no possibility of person dying, even then the information lacks the statistics of people affected. An appropriate information is required of percentage of people affected and percentage of people who lost their lives due to inoculation to convince us that inoculations should not be routinely administered.
- 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. 50
- 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 77
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 388 350
No. of Characters: 1895 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.438 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.884 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.805 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.556 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.646 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 107, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... flu should not be permitted. To support this recommendation the author cites tha...
^^
Line 3, column 451, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...e could be any number of possibilities. If this is the case then the argument fail...
^^
Line 5, column 95, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tioned. What if this flu is contagious? If this is the case then authority must ta...
^^
Line 5, column 295, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('routinely') instead an adjective, or a noun ('checkup') instead of another adjective.
...re is cure available or not. Performing a routinely checkup though have a slight possibility that t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...light possibility that the person might loose his life but there is a possibility of ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 61, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...at many lives 'might' be saved ,if there is even a smallest possibility ...
^^
Line 7, column 80, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
...;might' be saved ,if there is even a smallest possibility of saving a life w...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, so, then, as to, in conclusion, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1957.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 388.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04381443299 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93954908542 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.427835051546 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 635.4 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.5761672706 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.722222222 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5555555556 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.337097441511 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101604683256 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0671878919411 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194536261965 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469879668568 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.