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 states that inoculations against cow flu should not be routinely administered due to a small possibility a person could die as a result of the inoculations. This should be scrutinised because certain information is needed before such a position can be taken.
Firstly, the author states that there is a possibility of death occurring through the administration of such inoculations, yet he offers no evidence of such recorded deaths. There could be a possibilty that people who were routinely administered such inoculations died from other causative agents which could be hereditary or natural causes. The demography of the region where the inoculations were made and which serves as the basis for this conclusion was made is needed. The age range of people administered the inoculations is also needed. As well as other prevalent diseases in the area or hereditary diseases and illnesses in the administered patients. Basically the health records of such patients is needed.
Secondly, the author offers no evidence of the degree or percentage of deaths linked to the routine administration of the cow flu innoculations. If there is indeed a correlation between the two, it could be quite negligible. A patient could have a higher chance at survival than death leading from the administration of the cow flu inoculations.
Thirdly, the author contends that "many lives might be saved if the inoculations against cow flu were administered to all people where the disease is detected" yet offers no viable alternative to the routine administration of the cow flu inoculations. Coupled with the fact that no viable alternative is provided, the degree of effectiveness of any other method in comparison to the cow flu inoculations is not provided by the author.
Finally, the author might indeed have a reason or cause for worry from these inoculations, but except all these questions are definitively answered, it is difficult to agree with assertion of the author that this is the best alternative going forward.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | dkim1206 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | wcfr | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-16 | riyarmy | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Nowshin Tabassum | 70 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | Mizanur_Rahman | 55 | view |
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 79
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 45
- 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 75
- 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 i 64
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 326 350
No. of Characters: 1668 1500
No. of Different Words: 151 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.249 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.122 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.354 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.616 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1727.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 326.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29754601227 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24304511821 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466257668712 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 705.55239521 79% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.503258357 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.357142857 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2857142857 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.64285714286 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.358454386572 0.218282227539 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121988158828 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122270379043 0.0701772020484 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193036516186 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103433809489 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.