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.
'Prevention is better than cure' is an age-old adage that says that it is better to prevent diseases, rather than curing them. The argument given claims that vaccinations against the cow flu cannot be administered, on the premise that there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of it. The logic employed here is fallacious, and makes huge assumptions that, if false, can greatly weaken the argument. Enough evidence hasn't been provided to substantiate the argument, and simply making assumptions about reality isn't good practice, especially when ensuring public health safety.
First, the argument claims that the small possibility of death is sufficient to warrant a supposed ban on inoculations against cow flu. But the question that naturally arises here is, what is the death rate among people who contracted cow flu? Is the inoculation more lethal than the very disease it aims to prevent? If it is, in fact, more lethal, then the argument would be strengthened. However, in diseases such as COVID-19, flu, measles, etc., we have observed that the inoculated have a much lower probability of losing their lives as a result of it. Creating a vaccine takes a lot of research, trial and error, and numerous phases of testing. The argument does specify that there is an inoculation that could be possibly administered to the people, i.e., such a vaccine is in circulation. Hence, it must have withstood all the phases of testing, and must have been efficient, causing no more deaths than a certain low threshold. Thus, the line of reasoning employed based on the death rate is empirically wrong, since encouraging inoculations against the cow flu would cause much fewer people to die than if such a prevention measure were not utilised.
Second, the argument does concede that a lot of lives would be saved if inoculations were administered in all affected areas. This concession implies that many of these lives may not be saved if this measure is not taken. If the death rate was high for the vaccinated, this sentence wouldn't make any sense, and would be untrue. Hence, this premise simply solidifies our previous statement, that the death rate is not possibly higher for the vaccine than that of the disease.
Finally, it would be vital to take into account who the vaccine may have an adverse effect on. If the probability of a person dying as a result of the vaccine is related to factors such as age, gender, pregnancy, immuno-deficiency disorders, then we can simply not permit inoculations for those social groups for whom it would not work. If the vaccine has unfavourable side-effects on just pregnant people and the elderly, then it does not warrant keeping the vaccine away from all other groups of people. For such inoculation-vulnerable people, the vaccination could perhaps be delayed, or administered once further advancements have been made in the development of the vaccine. In the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, we observed that most governments administered the vaccine in different phases, starting with those who are more vulnerable to the disease, like the elderly, followed by focus on younger people. Pregnant people and those with immune system disorders were not given the vaccine until much later. This proves that the argument's reasoning in outright banning inoculations is incorrect, and does not consider what the 'possibility that a person will die' depends on. Evidence provided for these statistics could help make a better decision on who should be allowed to take the vaccine first, and who should not.
Thus, the arguments claim of disallowing inoculations based on the small possibility of death is false, and would be weakened by evidence in most cases. The only possible way for the argument to be strengthened would be if the vaccine has more lethality than the disease.
| 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 |
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at DuraSocks Inc A recent study of Dura Socks customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process which ensures that our sock 78
- The way a message is delivered is often more important than the message itself Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and suppor 64
- The following is from a recent email from the Diord Corp Human Resources Manager Tobor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days Tobor amended its employee insurance plan 58
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing 70
- Some people believe it is imperative for individuals living in developed nations to reduce their energy consumption and lead a more sustainable lifestyle given the evidence for global climate change Others believe that such drastic lifestyle changes are u 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 17 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 639 350
No. of Characters: 3112 1500
No. of Different Words: 275 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.028 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.87 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.806 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 216 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.831 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.475 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 436, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...ly weaken the argument. Enough evidence hasnt been provided to substantiate the argum...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 530, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...simply making assumptions about reality isnt good practice, especially when ensuring...
^^^^
Line 5, column 284, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... high for the vaccinated, this sentence wouldnt make any sense, and would be untrue. He...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, in fact, such as, as a result, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3206.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 635.0 441.139720559 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04881889764 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01988110783 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85357459439 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450393700787 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 1007.1 705.55239521 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 10.0 1.67365269461 597% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0178913619 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.740740741 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5185185185 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22222222222 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.294676003572 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868219475737 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785995715536 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165438426482 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0518070636336 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 98.500998004 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.