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.
This statement argues that routine inoculations against cow flu should not be permitted on the grounds that there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculation. In order for this statement to hold true or false, more specific evidence is required either support or refute this argument. Such evidence might come from a closer analysis of population statistics, scientific publications, as well as demographic studies.
In terms of statistics, it would be worthwhile to research the number of people who die from cow flu within a specified time frame. If this number is very high, this evidence would weaken the argument that routine inoculations not be permitted. However, if this number were very low, this would support the claim of denying routine inoculations. Such data would then need to be cross analyzed with the number of survivors versus non-survivors in those treated with the inoculation. In this way, a risk analysis could be deduced to determine whether the risk of providing the inoculation outweighs the risk of not providing it.
Additionally, a thorough review and research of published scientific articles pertaining to the incoluation should be performed to provide further support. In order to refute the claim against routine incoluations, there should be numerous published clinical trials. If there is hardly any scientific publications on the drug, this would streghthen the argument. However, even if there is sufficient science on the drug, a review of the positive and adverse effects of the inoculation, as well as survival analysis of those treated versus those untreated would be necessary to determine whether the inoculation should be permitted or not.
Furthermore, demographics may need to be considered in this argument as well. A study of who specifically is more susecptible to dying from the cow flu may narrow down the population for who should be provided the inoculation. In this way, a larger demographic could avoid being subjected to an albeit small, but nevertheless potentially fatal medical procedure. This would support the counterargument that the inoculation should be provided because the sample size of people provided the shot shrinks, therefore, the small number of people who may die from the inoculation also shrinks. However, if it were not possible to identify a small subset of people who are at a high risk of dying from cow flu, demographics may not play a role in either supporting or refuting evidence.
In conclusion, for a disease, that according to the argument, causes the loss of many lives, simply stating that the cure has a small potential to be fatal does not provide sufficient support. A deeper analysis into the risks and survivals ratio of providing the treatment versus not providing the treatment is required. Additionally, evidence from published clinical trials testing this inoculation must be reviewed. Lastly, a study on demographics in relation to the cow flu may or may not provide further evidence to refute this claim.
| 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 |
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 83
- 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 68
- 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 58
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 490 350
No. of Characters: 2496 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.705 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.094 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.925 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.425 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 310, Rule ID: BUT_NEVERTHELESS[1]
Message: Use simply 'but'.
Suggestion: but
...oid being subjected to an albeit small, but nevertheless potentially fatal medical procedure. Th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, well, while, in conclusion, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2560.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 490.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22448979592 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0142408077 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424489795918 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 805.5 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5358224 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.904761905 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47619047619 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => 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: 0.218014342003 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784018289089 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862353685829 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141671379141 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503445639418 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.