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 arguement that many lives might be saved if inoculations were routinely administered to people in areas where the disease is detected is a causal form of argument. However, this author is more concerned with the smaller chance of people dying of innoculation than the greater number of people likely to die if they don't get innoculated against the cow flu. This is flawed in a number of ways.
Firstly, the arguement fails to tell us if cow meat is the only source of food in areas where cowflu is detected. As is common knowledge, the cowflu can only affect humans if an infected meat is ingested. Therefore, if there are other sources of meat, or food at large, there will not be need for any form of innoculation at all.
Secondly, let us assume that cow meat is the only source of food in areas that cowflu is detected, which is highly unlikely. If the author believes that MANY lives will be saved if innoculations against the cow flu were routinely administered to all people, but that there is a SMALL possibility that a person might die as a result of the innoculation, he should prioritise permiting the innoculations if saving MORE lives is the goal. Would he prefer that many people die of the disease without any attemt to save their lives or that a few die in attempt to save their lives?
Thirdly, if innoculation will not be permitted for fear of human mortality due to the innoculation excercise, and many people will die if nothing is done, what then is the alternative solution? The author fails to point this out.
Fourthly, the author sounded like he was certain that the people will readily accept the innoculation even if he decides to administer it. He however, didnt provide any prrof of this. If they don't accept the innoculation, how exactly will lives be saved?
Without explicitly stating an alternative solution, or even providing proof that the people will accept the innoculation, the author's arguement is weak. This arguement would hold more water if the author specifically stated that cow meat is the only source of food in areas where Cow flu is detected, the people will readily accept any form of intervention to solve the problem, and lastly that there is an alternative solution to the problem of human mortality due to the presence of cowflu in affected areas.
| 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 |
- 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 Write a response in which you discuss 66
- 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 53
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 1863 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.611 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.629 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.851 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.631 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 320, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... number of people likely to die if they dont get innoculated against the cow flu. Th...
^^^^
Line 3, column 176, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'infected meat'.
Suggestion: infected meat
...e, the cowflu can only affect humans if an infected meat is ingested. Therefore, if there are ot...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 152, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e decides to administer it. He however, didnt provide any prrof of this. If they dont...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 193, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...idnt provide any prrof of this. If they dont accept the innoculation, how exactly wi...
^^^^
Line 11, column 513, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e presence of cowflu in affected areas.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.5258426966 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1920.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 402.0 442.535393258 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77611940299 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70102063808 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 215.323595506 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.425373134328 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 620.1 704.065955056 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 87.3802752342 60.3974514979 145% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.0 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.125 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 5.21951772744 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.372673950156 0.243740707755 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119777729759 0.0831039109588 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13847960857 0.0758088955206 183% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196082070151 0.150359130593 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133843388111 0.0667264976115 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.1392134831 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.1639044944 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 100.480337079 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.