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 claims that routine administrations of inoculations against cow flu cannot be permitted because there is a small chance that a person can die due to the inoculations, despite the fact that inoculations in areas where the disease has been detected would "save many". It is not immediately possible to evaluate the verity of this argument because there is a significant amount of evidence that is not provided.
The first concerning claim is the small possibility a person will die as a result of the inoculations. The argument never mentions how "small" this number is. Is it one in a ten, one in a trillion, or somewhere in between? Clearly, the number of people who will be affected by the inoculation will make a great difference - the larger the number of deaths in a given population, the more the argument will be strengthened.
Additionally, the argument never elaborates on the kind of people who are dying. Are all the people who die those with already poor immune systems, such as people with HIV? In any situation where it is easy to isolate the groups who could suffer from the vaccine, and simply vaccinate everyone else, the deaths due to inoculation would reduce and those without inoculation would also be significantly safer due to herd immunity, weakening the argument.
The nature of the deaths due to inoculation is also never mentioned. Is it possible that some of the inoculations were contaminated in the study, and those were the ones that caused deaths? Is it due to a treatable cold or fever that results from the inoculation, but insufficient care was provided to those getting the inoculation? Is it some kind of momentary dizziness that caused accidents? If any of these are the case, it severely weakens the presented argument because it would be much simpler to address these concerns while administering the inoculations than to forgo the regular administration of inoculations.
One point of evidence that could also influence the validity of the argument is how "many lives" are at stake if the inoculations are not administered. If the disease is particularly virile and spreads fast, or kills quickly and with few symptoms, then removing the inoculation would mean significantly more deaths. For example, when the black plague was spreading across Europe, they were only able to save themselves by burning down entire houses with families inside if any member showed the slightest symptom. That was not the humane method, but may have been the only option to ensure that anyone survived. Similarly, in this case it is important to evaluate how this disease would proliferate. If the situation is that the disease causes visible symptoms much before the patient becomes infectious, or treatment for the disease is cheap, easy, and successful, then the argument is greatly strengthened.
Evaluating the argument would also require knowledge of how widespread the disease already is. Imagine there is only 4 cases so far in one town of 100 people that are well connected inside their country of one billion. And suppose the disease kills 25% of those infected, every infected person infects 10 others, and the inoculation kills even 50% of those infected (a rather unreasonably high number). The it is obvious to see that inoculating the town of 100 would leave around 49 alive, but not inoculating them would risk the death of up to 25 million. In that case inoculation is the clear answer.
However, if the disease has already spread throughout the country and all of the 1 billion people in the population would need to be inoculated. That would kill 50 million, as opposed to the 25 million from the disease, making inoculation the wrong answer.
Therefore, knowledge of the statistics of death rates due to disease and inoculation, the kinds of deaths and isolation of population groups from the disease and inoculation, the region the disease is spreading in and the likelihood it will affect other areas if unchecked, are all crucial pieced of evidence that are necessary to thoroughly evaluate the argument that routinely administered inoculations should not be taken up in areas where the cow flu is detected, even though inoculations will save lives, simply because the inoculations do carry a small possibility of death.
- 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 80
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 83
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 86
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 709 350
No. of Characters: 3486 1500
No. of Different Words: 296 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.16 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.917 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 249 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 184 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 126 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.448 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.185 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.655 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 8 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 90, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...so never mentioned. Is it possible that some of the inoculations were contaminated in the s...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 334, 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.
...vided to those getting the inoculation? Is it some kind of momentary dizziness tha...
^^
Line 11, column 403, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'The' or 'it'?
Suggestion: The; It
...cted a rather unreasonably high number. The it is obvious to see that inoculating the ...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 71, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ready spread throughout the country and all of the 1 billion people in the population woul...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, similarly, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 47.0 19.6327345309 239% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3618.0 2260.96107784 160% => OK
No of words: 709.0 441.139720559 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10296191819 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.16014088096 4.56307096286 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9688443707 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 315.0 204.123752495 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444287729196 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1174.5 705.55239521 166% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 11.0 1.67365269461 657% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 103.474807148 57.8364921388 179% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.214285714 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3214285714 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.39285714286 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.15768463074 155% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311147431881 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0750306229145 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083888785028 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155760074238 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0781828084483 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.