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 i

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 inoculation against the cow flu would be much more dangerous than the disease, so that the medical practice should not be regularly administered. However, the author does not provide any evidence that clearly indicates the possibility of death resulted from either the inoculation or the cow flu. Furthermore, we are not even sure how contagious the disease may be, if the government takes no measure to curb its spreading. It’s still probable that the disease may cause more death than what the inoculation could lead to. Besides, the vaccines can be improved with further medical research to lower its risk, which offers a better solution than just giving up the policy.

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 lights on his/her argument

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not well reasoned because it rests on questionable assumptions and does not have strong enough evidence to support it. The author assumes that taking the inoculation will create more problems and harm people’s lives even more and also forgets to provide exact number to avoid vagueness when he/she tries to address this issue with a statistical sense.