Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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
The argument suggests that since the possibility of death exists as a result of routinely administering inoculations to people in areas where cow flu has been detectted, then there should be no administering of the innoculations.
To strengthen this argument, we must first ascertain by autopcies that the routine administration of the innoculations can actually lead to death and to prove such actual death casess as a result of such a person or persons recieving this innoculation must be provided. Such a cases may not suffice as there would also need to be evidence to provide a direct cause and effect relationship between the administration of the innoculation and the resultant death, the evidence must go further to state that there were no other likely causes of such death such as an existing medical condition or another disease endemic to these affected areas. The evidence must be able to isolate the cause of death top the inoculation. On the other hand if the autopsies prove or signify other factors that may have been the cause of death to these cases reviews=ed then that would cast doubt on the argument and weaken the stance on the prohibition of the inoculation.
Another evidence that may provide support for the argument would be one that proves the adverse effect of the inoculations in another area or point in time. If it is proven that the inoculations were administered to an area plagued with cow flu or a similar strain of the disease previously and lead to the death of a number of persons in that area then that would provide support for the argument. on the other hand if a better case is provided one that shows how the routione administration of the inoculations played a pivotal role in ameliorating the ravaging impact of the disease then that would severely weaken the aregument.
To further strengthin the argument, if there exists a better alternative like a vaccine or another drug that could prevent or cure the disease then there would be nop need for the routine administration of the inoculations thus supporting the argument. Conversely if there exists no other tenable alternative then the argument would be weakened as this would result to a simple cost- benefit analysis as it would have to weigh the potential number of lives to be saved by routine administration of the inoculations against the small possibility of the loss of lives. The Utilitarian argument in such a case would weigh more and thus weaken the argument that seeks to prohibit the administration of the inoculations.
Finally, in line with the need to provide tenable alternatives one must also consider the cause of the cow flu, if evidence can be provided, one that ties the causation of the disease itself to enviromental or hygene factors in the areas affected by cow flu then rather than see inoculations as the panacea for the disease whjy not treat these other factors that would likely eradicate the disease thus eliminating any possiblitity of death. This would strengthen the argument in that it would invalidate the need to routinely administer the inoculations but give rise rather to other alternatives .
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-05-18 | Daniel.ogbechi@theoniyagroup.com | 70 | view |
| 2020-05-15 | AarushiK | 78 | view |
| 2020-03-27 | Joshua Olowolaju | 50 | view |
| 2016-09-14 | Rashed Bipu | 89 | view |
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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 70
- 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 the employees sych consultants would be unnecessary Write a response in which you discuss the ex 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 20 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2582 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.89 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.906 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 44 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 20.547 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.917 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.46 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.709 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.213 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...would provide support for the argument. on the other hand if a better case is prov...
^^
Line 7, column 254, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Conversely,
...culations thus supporting the argument. Conversely if there exists no other tenable altern...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 598, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...t give rise rather to other alternatives .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, conversely, finally, first, if, may, so, then, thus, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.9520958084 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2622.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97533206831 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95533206312 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.377609108159 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 865.8 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 40.0 22.8473053892 175% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 93.3977940264 57.8364921388 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 201.692307692 119.503703932 169% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.5384615385 23.324526521 174% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.69230769231 5.70786347227 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22828643972 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103786930972 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0847792222473 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171515935668 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0777124759696 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 22.3 14.3799401198 155% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.88 48.3550499002 64% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 12.197005988 155% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.49 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 18.0 11.1389221557 162% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.