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 author of the argument conclude that they cannot permit the inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. To bolster his argument, author has given the evidence that there is small possibility that as a result of inoculations person will die. This argument seems to be valid at first glance, but when we try to analyze it in a greater detailed it is flawed.
Firstly, the author claims that the inoculations against cow flu can save many lives if administerd routinely. This argument is falwed in itself because author has failed to mention which type of inovulation it is? How much is the severity of that inoculation? It is possible that the inoculation have less severity that is not responsible to harm the people. It is also possible that it is more severe, than the tolerating capacity of the people. Thus, author should mention clearly, what type of inoculation is suggested for cow flu and how much is its severity.
Further, author contradicts the claim and state that because of the inoculation there is a small possibility that person can die. Again, this argument is falwed, because there might be other possibilities for the death of people. It is possible that the people are dying due to the age, other diseases and accidental death. The author has not take into consideration this factors as a reason behind the death of the people.
Lastly, the author is assuming that the the inoculation results in death of the people so they canmnot permit the inoculation aginst cow flu to be routinely administered. But it is also possible that, if they didnt provide inoculation aginst cow flu there will be more deaths of the people. Moreover, there might be other inoculation possible to save the people. The author should mention about the other inoculations possible to save the people.
In conclusion, the author's arguments is flawed due to the insufficient information provided. To strengthen the argument, author should provide more deatails about the type of inoculation and severity of inoculation. Also, author should consider the other factors responsible for deaths of people, and other inoculations possible to treat cow flu before taking the decision of not permitting inoculation against cow flu to be administered routi
- The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company's president."In an effort to improve our employees' productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees' Int 55
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agr 70
- Claim Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive Reason It is primarily in cities that a nation s cultural traditions are preserved and generated Write a response in which you discuss the ext 62
- The following is a letter to the editor of an environmental magazine."Two studies of amphibians in Xanadu National Park confirm a significant decline in the numbers of amphibians. In 1975 there were seven species of amphibians in the park, and there 50
- settlement of the Chaco Canyon 56
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1847 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.952 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.798 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.79 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 344, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'taken'.
Suggestion: taken
...nd accidental death. The author has not take into consideration this factors as a re...
^^^^
Line 13, column 37, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... Lastly, the author is assuming that the the inoculation results in death of the peo...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 37, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... Lastly, the author is assuming that the the inoculation results in death of the peo...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 210, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
.... But it is also possible that, if they didnt provide inoculation aginst cow flu ther...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, thus, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1906.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 373.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10991957105 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86713147559 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.402144772118 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5634722093 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.3 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.65 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.297836887869 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111590476123 0.0743258471296 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799851868299 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19449122016 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052710952926 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.37 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.