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 argument that many lives might be saved if innoculation against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected is not well substantiated, hence, no fool-proof conclusion can be made here.
The writer did not state the dangers of not innoculating against the cow flu or the chances an uninnoculated person stand against the flu. Were this information to be given, it can then be reasonable to determine if the innoculation should be administered or not.The writer also did not give any statistics to show that the innoculation really works for different people with varying health profiles or that it even works at all! If the innoculation is inefficient then the exercise would be pointless and a waste of resources.
On the other hand, if the cow flu is very deadly and the innoculations works efficiently with minimal harm to innoculated individuals, then it would be advisable to administer it routinely - as the alternative is more severe.Again, we do not know the actual number of deaths that was projected or has occurred due to the innoculation neither is there evidence to show that the innoculation has caused any death. This unavailability of relevant data makes it illogical to affirm a postion on the administeration of the innoculation.Considering the innoculation will be administered only to people in areas where the disease is detected, it would seem reasonable to permit it, however, what if the area is one with high ingress and egress of people, then such strategy will be inefficient.
Also, if the flu is communicable, having the people innoculated would be advisable.With the provided argument above, it is clear that more research needs to be done, parameters considered, evidence given to adequately support the position to not permit the innoculation to be routinely administered.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 6 15
No. of Words: 305 350
No. of Characters: 1521 1500
No. of Different Words: 154 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.179 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.987 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.134 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 77 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 50.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.478 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 1 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.516 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.162 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 234, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
... fool-proof conclusion can be made here.The writer did not state the dangers of not...
^^^
Line 1, column 497, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...oculation should be administered or not.The writer also did not give any statistics...
^^^
Line 1, column 987, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Again
...ely - as the alternative is more severe.Again, we do not know the actual number of de...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 1293, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Considering
...the administeration of the innoculation.Considering the innoculation will be administered o...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1633, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: With
...e people innoculated would be advisable.With the provided argument above, it is clea...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, really, so, then, well, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1548.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 300.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.41331044329 2.78398813304 123% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.526666666667 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 515.7 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 19.7664670659 25% => 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: 60.0 22.8473053892 263% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 37.5893601967 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 309.6 119.503703932 259% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 60.0 23.324526521 257% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 13.4 5.70786347227 235% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276022081396 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.16770801127 0.0743258471296 226% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11040318915 0.0701772020484 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.276022081396 0.128457276422 215% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 32.9 14.3799401198 229% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 2.12 48.3550499002 4% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 19.3 7.1628742515 269% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 27.9 12.197005988 229% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.54 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.32208582834 126% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 31.0 12.3882235529 250% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 26.0 11.1389221557 233% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 31.0 11.9071856287 260% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.