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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The basic reasoning of the argument is weak as it lacks in lot of areas because of numerous inconclusive assumptions leading to overall weak argument. Author suggests that routine administration of inoculations against cow flu in areas where disease is detected would help save many lives. He further states that the probability of death of a person as a result of inoculation is small but likely, so inoculations should not be permitted to be routinely administered.
Author's argument lacks basic evidence as what is the probability of people affected with cow flu not dying. If the possibility of a person not dying due to infection with cow flu is higher than the probability of person dying after inoculation against cow flu than it would make much more sense to not go for inoculation, otherwise inoculation against cow flu would be a better option at least basis the mathematical probability of saving a life. The argument would be strengthened once a higher clarity on statistical possibilities of person dying or not dying due to infection with cow flu in the areas where disease is detected is cogently presented.
Moreover, the clarity in the evidence on the possibility of person dying due to inoculation in the region of disease existing is not discussed at all. This leaves a fundamental gap whether considering the probabilistic fact of death by inoculation is itself worth being considered for taking decision against permitting inoculation for routine administration. The argument is quite undermined in its natural form and would get strong basis this evidence too.
Lastly, the basic argument of saving lives if inoculations were routinely administered need to be assessed. In case the routine administration of inoculation provides low possibility of saving lives then the conclusion of the argument would be correct but it might be the case that the conclusion would be basis this evidence, which would help strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, the argument lacks several evidences and leaves it quite weak in its current form. Identifying facts on probability of person dying due to cow flu, possibility of person dying due to inoculation in the region of disease and probability of saving lives if inoculations were routinely administered need to be established and quoted. These assumptions would be needed to strengthen the argument which in its current form is quite weak and wanting for additional evidences.
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 2022 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.145 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.097 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.726 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.411 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.64 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, at least, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2052.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2213740458 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13719923632 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.404580152672 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.775477654 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.571428571 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0714285714 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21428571429 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37125660281 0.218282227539 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14722188563 0.0743258471296 198% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107724567967 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226321143324 0.128457276422 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0498258913453 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.