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 argument states that because there is a small chance that one who is vaccinated against the cow flu may die, we are unable to routinely administer inoculations against the cow flu, though many lives, where the disease is present, can be saved. This argument frightens and appeals to the people who fear death. However, when looking at this argument from a logical perspective, the argument lacks crucial evidence that can strengthen or weaken their decision to forbid routine inoculations.
To begin, the phrase “small possibility” is too vague. In order to evaluate this argument truthfully, numbers and percentages are needed. Without any numbers and by simply using adjectives to describe a size, the argument is subjective. The word “small” can mean .02% to some and 35% to others. The author needs to use specific statistics from a governmental source or from a medical journal. The specific demographic information can strengthened the argument. Without statistics, the readers would question the whole argument, as they would wonder where the author is getting his/her information if they do not have raw data.
Secondly, the author assumes the repercussions from the vaccination are far worse than the disease itself because a select few might die from the inoculations. This would mean that people infected the cow flu do not necessarily die, as they cannot risk to give people the vaccination. However, this would contradict the author’s argument, as it states “many lives might be saved.” Nonetheless, with this understanding, there is a difference between administering the inoculations and developing a disease, as one is active and one is passive. Furthermore, the author is under the understanding that the disease is contagious and all people within that area are susceptible to the cow flu without the inoculation, as he would administer the vaccine to everyone in that area. The author should specify the symptoms and the effects of the disease without the inoculation in order to create a complete and truthful argument. However, the author does not pose any evidence for this, which would be helpful to strengthen his argument.
To conclude, the author tries to argue that because a select few who receive the cow flu vaccination have a slight chance of death, the inoculation cannot be routinely administered, even though the vaccine can save many lives. Without specific statistics and information about the disease, this argument does not embody validity.
- 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 permi 69
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.Write a response in which you discu 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Here goes a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/many-lives-might-b…
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 399 350
No. of Characters: 2027 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.469 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.08 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.826 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.974 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.421 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 414, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ental source or from a medical journal. The specific demographic information can st...
^^^
Line 5, column 124, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little might'.
Suggestion: little might
...han the disease itself because a select few might die from the inoculations. This would m...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 331, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...this argument does not embody validity.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, look, may, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2133.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35929648241 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09176035559 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489949748744 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 672.3 705.55239521 95% => 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: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.1259787204 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.5 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1111111111 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.244465362905 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0712141037875 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865072311976 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15942576128 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0947870120785 0.0628817314937 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.