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 person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.
Argument states that the lives of people can be saved if the inoculations against the cow flu were routinely administered to all the people in the affected areas. Since the disease can be lethal, if unnoticed, people have put forth to administer inoculations against the flu. However, the person who is affected has a minor probability of dying, which in turns results in rejection of the claim. But the argument to reject the claim the reason given is vague and raises a numerous questions against the rejection. It tells that the possibility of a person dying is very little, but what if a person dies because of even that minor possibility? Is the survey made to find out the people who are vulnerable to the disease? and Is there any measures taken to avoid the inoculations?
Firstly, human lives are considered to be priceless and even if a single person is dying because of the constitution or a government's irresponsibility is not good. The rejection for the claims states that even the person who is affected by the symptoms for Cow flu is not likely to die, may be a little. But there is no evidence which provides the information about this data. And the rejecting body should have considered few factors, like the number of people in the town/city, age differences among them, senior citizens in the town/city, how many of them are already dead because of the disease and now affected. These factors should have been considered before rejecting any claims, which the argument fails to present.
Secondly, the cause of the Cow flu and it influence in the current climatic conditions has to be found, there is a possibility where the climate would have changed are livestock which is living prone to the changing climatic conditions which dissipate the disease. There are numerous possibilities of the inoculations from the terrain travel and air travels from foreign countries might have caused the effects. These possibilities have to looked keenly before coming to a decision of rejection. Since there may be a higher probability for the disease to spread in the town/city. So the government/constitutions should take necessary actions and collect needy information to analyse the vulnerability of the disease in their town/city.
Additionally, to constitution must ensure the health responsibilities of it place and try to narrow down all the prone factors and ensure it wont affect the lives of the people. Since the responsibility looks very high, they have to pay attention to the out break such diseases in order to control them.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the constitution/government which rejected the claim should have considered all the possibilities above to come a feasible conclusion. Otherwise the results could be worsened and reprehensible at later point.
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 70
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the Dean of Residential Life at Radsliffe College.“To continue to meet the needs of our students who require housing, we must update our housing system to not only meet safety standards but also to provide amenities 83
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish. 60
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 62
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 482, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'question'?
Suggestion: question
...on given is vague and raises a numerous questions against the rejection. It tells that th...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 724, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...ple who are vulnerable to the disease? and Is there any measures taken to avoid th...
^^^
Line 3, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
... dying because of the constitution or a governments irresponsibility is not good. The rejec...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 43, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'influences'?
Suggestion: influences
...condly, the cause of the Cow flu and it influence in the current climatic conditions has ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 178, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...es above to come a feasible conclusion. Otherwise the results could be worsened and repre...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'as to', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.223552894212 0.25644967241 87% => OK
Verbs: 0.181636726547 0.15541462614 117% => OK
Adjectives: 0.063872255489 0.0836205057962 76% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0359281437126 0.0520304965353 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0199600798403 0.0272364105082 73% => OK
Prepositions: 0.109780439122 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0499001996008 0.0416121511921 120% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.14628932802 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0439121756487 0.026700313972 164% => OK
Particles: 0.0059880239521 0.001811407834 331% => OK
Determiners: 0.145708582834 0.113004496875 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0259481037924 0.0255425247493 102% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0259481037924 0.0127820249294 203% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2810.0 2731.13054187 103% => OK
No of words: 463.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.06911447084 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.352051835853 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.254859611231 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190064794816 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.129589632829 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14628932802 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 207.018472906 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475161987041 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 53.6375734043 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0476190476 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2997639203 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.80952381 141.986410481 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0476190476 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.724660767414 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 47.5335801707 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.61344537815 1.8405768891 88% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.465923041377 0.441005458295 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.123277842455 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0862104706799 0.0829849096947 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.595549065201 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145625748884 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.203201171152 0.193483328276 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0939066391844 0.0970749176394 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.53952083903 0.42659136922 126% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.110281396702 0.0774707102158 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.31010387653 0.312017818177 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118136601394 0.0698173142475 169% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.33743842365 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.87684729064 247% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 0.0 6.46551724138 0% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 14.0 5.36822660099 261% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.