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.
Cow flu may, or may not, be an epidemic. Inoculation against cow flu may, or may not, cause death. Routine administration may, or may not, be necessary. This individual captures all those "may, or may nots" and argues the following: Although people are dying from cow flu, because there is the possibility that a person will die from inoculation, we cannot "permit" such. However, the individual uses all those "may, or may nots" to make his or her argument, leaving us with an uninformed decision. We cannot simply decide on permitting routine administration unless we have more evidence, specifically evidence relating to inoculation efficacy and how much of a concern cow flu is.
The first source of evidence is how many people actually die following inoculation. For a person who does not know, it is easy to conclude that we cannot permit inoculations, even if there is a small possibility that a person will die. Perhaps the person who stated this argument knows of a friend who died. However, making conclusions off one instance reflects biased thinking. Such would be equivalent to making an argument on evidence most available and rejecting any evidence that might weaken an argument, otherwise known as the availability and confirmation biases. If we were to collect data across the US showing the number of individuals who receive the inoculation and how many died soon thereafter, we would have a better sense of whether we can or cannot permit routinely-administered inoculations.
In addition, knowing the number of people that die as a result of cow flu will help us make a more informed decision. Say, for instance, that very few people die as a result of cow flu. Sure, it then makes sense not to permit inoculations against cow flu because it would be a violation of privacy and may even be a way of taking away your freedom. It also puts a medical burden on the individual receiving the inoculation and requires unnecessary and undue government expenditures. However, if cow flu is an epidemic, then routinely-administered inoculation is necessary. We would be more equipped to evaluate this individual's argument if we had access to the number of people that die as a result of cow flu.
Another source of evidence, and likely the most important, is how many lives would be saved if we were to routinely administer inoculations. Knowing whether inoculation actually prevents cow flu will tell us whether inoculation actually does anything to save people's lives and whether we should permit routine administration. In addition, it would indicate that using government expenditures would be a worthwhile cause. However, yet again, we cannot know unless we know how many lives would be saved as a result of routine administration.
Before we can discuss the argument at hand, and its strength, we need to know more about the issue. The individual making this statement seems to be making a strong conclusion and inferring a good decision by making a statement without presenting much evidence. By doing so, we are almost forced to accept it, since we don't really know how to argue against it. However, we cannot simply be left behind without considering the evidence for and against it.
- 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 66
- The following appeared in a letter from the faculty committee to the president of Seatown University:A study conducted at nearby Oceania University showed that faculty retention is higher when professors are offered free tuition at the university for thei 69
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satell 29
- 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 89
- The emergence of the online “blogosphere” and social media has significantly weakened the quality of political discourse in the United States. Reason: When anyone can publish political opinions easily, standards for covering news and political topics 75
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 535 350
No. of Characters: 2601 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.809 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.862 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.01 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.577 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.404 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.808 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.25 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 617, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...would be more equipped to evaluate this individuals argument if we had access to the number...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 320, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...re almost forced to accept it, since we dont really know how to argue against it. Ho...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, may, really, so, then, while, for instance, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 32.0 12.9520958084 247% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 37.0 16.3942115768 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2712.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 534.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07865168539 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1565679943 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440074906367 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 887.4 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 4.96107784431 282% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2001356941 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.307692308 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5384615385 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.409963723073 0.218282227539 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124853966551 0.0743258471296 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0774962209036 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237897596019 0.128457276422 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733598521978 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.