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 argument states that there might have been saved many lives, if inoculations against cow flu were administered more routinely than it has been where people in the area the disease is detected. It also provides reasoning for the argument that it is not feasible to routinely administer the inoculations for the cow flu because there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the disease. However, the arguments doesn't provide any more information about symptoms, direct effects of disease, number of people affected by the cow flu and feasibility and cost of the medicine it requires to cure the disease. As the arguments not providing sufficient details and with assuming that it would be not feasible to permit inoculations against cow flu and therefore is unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with, it provides contrasting details that many lives could have been saved if inoculations were permitted from the authority and that there is a small possibility of the death of the person because of the disease. As there is no more information about how many lives it has affected and what is the probability of the person dying as victim of the cow flu and therefore, unable to provide any support for the argument and in addition raises doubts on veracity of the information provided by the author.
Secondly, it is assumed that by just administering the people in the area where cow flu is detected would save lives. There should be evidence supporting the data that symptoms are apparent and easy to notice and can be also easy to prevent from exacerbating the condition of the patient to strengthen the argument. But unavailability of that data only suggests that authority would not be that much succesful in preventing the disease even if they administered the area.
Thirdly, the reason given by the argument is not providing any constructive idea that why it is not feasible to permit inoculations against the disease. It also states that only after looking for symptoms by the doctors, it would be helpful to fight the disease and otherwise it would not offer any help to alleviate the condition of patient. As the severity of cow flu and number of doctors available for treatment are not provided, which further undermines the authenticity of the reasoning stated by the argument.
Conclusively, there is not enough information provided to assess the situation in given context and decide anything. Lack of evidences of the case made by the argument also with combination of unsubstantiated assumptions makes it more harder to belive. If information about severity of cow flu disease, number of people affected by the disease as well as the number of doctors available to treat patients and cost of taking actions against prevention of the disease would better help to understand the point made by the author.
- 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
- Critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in the field. 66
- Young people should be encouraged to pursue long-term goal rather than seek immediate fame and recognition. 83
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs. 66
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of just accepting it passively. 80
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: 50 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 478 350
No. of Characters: 2334 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.676 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.867 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.265 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.396 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.62 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 434, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... of the disease. However, the arguments doesnt provide any more information about symp...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 607, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'curing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: curing
...ty and cost of the medicine it requires to cure the disease. As the arguments not provi...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 231, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'harder' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: harder
...of unsubstantiated assumptions makes it more harder to belive. If information about severit...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, well, in addition, as a result, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2385.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86114447378 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.398322851153 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.9 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.8769884506 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.0 119.503703932 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.8 23.324526521 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.46666666667 5.70786347227 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.316480453596 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.118082916727 0.0743258471296 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103654017064 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177844686101 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10886286182 0.0628817314937 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => 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.