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 prompt states that, the routine administration of inoculation against the cow flue cannot be permitted. This is because of the small possibility that a person will die as a result of inoculation. The prompt for its proper evaluation needs to answer questions raised below.
Firstly, the author has not given the brief gravity of the situation. More details should be provided on the intensity of the spread of the flue, number of people infected, the nature of virus. The author says many lives could be saved but we do not know the definite number that the many represents. If the number of live that is saved is greater or less relative to number of people suffering.
Secondly, the nature of the flue is not discussed. More details should be given on the nature of the flue that if it is transferable or non-transferable and the susceptibility of the person against the flue, to know the intensity of the effects of disease.
Thirdly, the author claims that routine administration of the inoculation against the flue could save lives. However, the lucid information on meaning of routine administration is not provided. The information like number of doses and timings of the doses are not given. Moreover, the information like, if all that are suffering from the flue can be inoculated or not is not given. The information like, if the patients of other disease, old and young could be inoculated or not is not given.
Fourthly, the author claims that the small possibility of the person will die of inoculation. Here, it is not clearly mentioned that how many people might die. Also, if the death probability is higher in people who are not suffering from the flue or not suffering from the flue before inoculation.
In conclusion, the prompt as it has many flaws due to its reliance on the un warranted assumption. So, if the author could provide detailed answer to the aforementioned questions and confusion. We could then re-evaluate the validity of the prompt.
| 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 |
- 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 70
- Claim Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today Reason We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both Write a response in which you discuss the extent to w 59
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten year budget for the city of Calatrava The birthrate in our city is declining in fact last year s birthrate was only one half that of five years ago Thus the number of students enroll 67
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoni 54
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather tha 65
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 291 350
No. of Characters: 1368 1500
No. of Different Words: 120 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.13 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.701 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.786 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 92 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 63 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 45 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.37 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.36 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 291.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84879725086 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13022058845 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88614380326 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 204.123752495 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.432989690722 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 446.4 705.55239521 63% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.1787329589 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.0 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1176470588 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.29411764706 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211121573944 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.069665383583 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0618175588686 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104425671807 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0519065801159 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.