“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 perm

The author argues that the inoculation against cow flu should not be routinely administered, because people receiving the inoculation may risk a small possibility in causing undesired death, despite the potential effectiveness of the inoculation in saving people’s lives. At the first glance, the author’s argument seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it is based on some dubious assumptions and faulty reasoning.

First of all, the author assumes that the death rate of the inoculation against cow flu is the only factor that determines whether the inoculation should be enforced or not. The author has left out several other factors that reveal more in-depth consideration on this issue. For instance, the financial status of the government also influences significantly on the result of the inoculation. A government with sufficient funds to support the inoculation policy may lower its risk by implementing careful examination and providing emergency aid after people have taken the inoculation. Thus, the conclusion lacks strong support because the author ignores other possible factors that contribute together to whether the inoculation will succeed or not.

Second, the author supports his argument with vague words, such as “many lives” and “small possibility.” It seems that the author tries to cite some statistical evidence to make his/her statement more convincing. However, the author has failed to provide exact number that indicates how many people can be saved and how possible people will die due to the inoculation. The author should resort to some medical research data or governmental publication to reinforce his/her argument with an authoritative voice. Furthermore, the demographic group more susceptible to the danger of the inoculation is supposed to be specified in order to speculate whether the threat posed by the inoculation will affect a large population and how it can be avoided. Therefore, the author should use more statistical evidence to shed light on his/her argument.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not well reasoned because it rests on questionable assumptions and doesn’t have strong enough evidence to support it. The author dismisses other factors that may affect the outcome of the inoculation against cow flu, and forgets to provide exact number to avoid vagueness when he/she tries to address this issue with a statistical sense.