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.
In the text, the writer says that in areas where the cow flu was endemic, if more and more people were vaccinated against it, it would save many lives. Then he goes on to say that since there is a certain risk of death associated with the routine administration of the cow-flu vaccine, this solution is not permitted.
I find numerous flaws in the writer's argument. Firstly, the writer has not clarified and given many details about how widespread the cow flu is. It may be possible that cow flu is detected in only a small region in the entire world, or it may be a potential pandemic disease as well. I feel this is a critical piece of evidence required from the writer. The author has also failed to provide data regarding exactly how many people or rather what percentage of people affected would live if administered the cow flu vaccine. It is key evidence of how many lives the vaccine is saving. The statement made by the author is therefore quite ambiguous and we, as readers, are not able to gather much from it.
Secondly, the author is also not giving exactly how much the chances of people dying, if inoculated against the disease. It may be possible that only 0.001% of the population may die, which may be quite less than the count of deaths caused by cow flu, thereby weakening the author's claim. It may also be possible that greater than 10% of the population may die, which might be much greater than the actual number of deaths due to the disease itself and could strengthen the author's argument. As we can easily infer, specific numbers or percentages are required to correctly evaluate the author's statements.
So all in all, I feel that the author's argument is substantially weak, and some concrete data and evidence are required to support the argument and convince the reader beyond doubt.
| 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 |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 321 350
No. of Characters: 1462 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.233 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.555 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.462 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 22 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.224 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.361 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.148 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 30, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...mitted. I find numerous flaws in the writers argument. Firstly, the writer has not c...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 475, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...disease itself and could strengthen the authors argument. As we can easily infer, speci...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ents. So all in all, I feel that the authors argument is substantially weak, and som...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, i feel
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1501.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 321.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.67601246106 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4874019005 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.526479750779 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1138785608 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.214285714 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9285714286 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.64285714286 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.28985803709 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865549366204 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629184570432 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150970524199 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0679867756729 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.