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 of the argument claims that many lives can be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, the author proceeds explaining that there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of inoculation. So the permission for administering against cow fly routinely should not be given.
One of the first question to be answered is whether inoculations exist for cow flu. For some deadly diseases like cancer, vaccines are not available. There will not be a question of inoculation administration for all people in areas where the disease is found if the vaccine does not exist. Second point to be evaluated is why inoculations to all people. Does cow flu spread by air, point of contact or is it hereditary or by chance.
Routine administeration of inoculations may not be required to prevent spread of diseases. For example some vaccines are administered to humans only once in their lifetime. Vaccines contain virus that cause a particular disease. Antibodies for that virus are generated by the human body once the vaccine is injected into a human being. Such antibodies are present for the entire lifetime of humans. So the author should consider whether routine vaccine injections are required.
Further, the author should take into account the number of people who have died as a result of inoculations. The author has mentioned about a small possibility of death which has to be verified by medical professionals if there are cases of death due to inoculation. We also have to consider the ratio of death is to survival in order to decide against the permission to administer inoculations for cow flu. For example, the ratio of death : survival is 1 : 9999999, then not administering inoculations to people would be a bad idea since the survival count is drastically higher. We also need to consider the death count if not provided inoculation for the disease.
As per the above points, there are some gaps in the argument of the author. Some evidences and examples are required to decide with the author's argument.
- As people rely more and more on technology, the ability of humans to think for themselves deteriorates. 33
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports like swimming boating and fishing among their favourite recreational activities . The Mason River flowing through the cityis rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes li 50
- 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. 66
- Claim: In order to help small businesses thrive, government should play a minimal role in private business matters.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. Indeveloping and supporting your position, b 33
- 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 50
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 356 350
No. of Characters: 1731 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.344 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.862 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.867 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.952 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.47 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 137, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...xamples are required to decide with the authors argument.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, as to, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 28.8173652695 31% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1784.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 356.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01123595506 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93670949593 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.463483146067 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 590.4 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.2324318208 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.9523809524 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9523809524 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.80952380952 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370757955389 0.218282227539 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104983757509 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118616120946 0.0701772020484 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20924615089 0.128457276422 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.201733494706 0.0628817314937 321% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.89 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.