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.
Though the inoculations might be harmful to the people, the author's argument for rejecting the inoculation is flawed on many levels.
He rejects vaccination based on many unwarranted assumptions which are not true.
Firstly, there is no indication of what the 'small possibility' means. Does it mean that if it were administered to 100,000 people, 1 person will die or does it mean that 1 in 100 people will die if administered the vaccination? Without such information, there is no way to estimate the success rate of the inoculation. If it was the former, then, it makes sense to routinely administer the vaccination because more lives will be saved if they are protected against cow flu. But, if it has a high mortality rate, then, the people of the area will be better off not taking the inoculation. Thus, in order to make an informed decision, the author should provide more information about the success rate of the medicine and what is the fatality rate. Without this information, it is impossible to make any decision about whether the inoculation should be permitted or not.
Secondly, the author does not say what is the cause of death when vaccinated. There could be a variety of factors at play here and it is not black and white as the author assumes. For one, the cause of death could be due to genetic factors in which case there is nothing that could be done to prevent death. Even in such cases, it is possible to prevent fatality by not administering the vaccine to such people and warning them to stay indoors until the threat passes. But, apart from genetic factor, there could be other factors like dosage, how often will it be administered, etc. If dosage was the reason, then, area administration could consider reducing the dosage to reduce fatality. If the frequency of inoculation is the reason, they could try to reduce the frequency- all of which will help reduce fatality. Without a clear indication into the cause of death, there is no way to decide where the problem is. The author will benefit by providing a scientific analysis into the reason for death and the probability of its happening in the people of this area. If it is something that can be mitigated, then, necessary steps could be taken to avoid mortality and the vaccines could be administered.
Even if there is some fatality rate, no medical advancement is 100% safe. Even a routine surgery or cough syrups is known to kill people in rare cases. But, what matters in the end is that more people are saved than harmed if these continue to be used. Similarly, if it can be established that more people will be saved than killed by these inoculations, then, the vaccines should be adminsitered. To draw this conclusion, proper statistics should be pr
Thus, we see that the author's argument for rejecting the inoculations is flawed on many levels. Even if his/her decision might be correct, there is no way that it can be inferred from the argument provided by him. Thus, the area administration must not seriously consider the author's opinion and look more closely to decide whether to administer inoculation or not based on further studies.
- 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 83
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men 49
- Over the past year, our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station’s coverage of loca 35
- 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 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 543 350
No. of Characters: 2530 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.827 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.659 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.885 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.577 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.275 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.481 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 61, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ons might be harmful to the people, the authors argument for rejecting the inoculation ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 389, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... makes sense to routinely administer the vaccination because more lives will be s...
^^
Line 6, column 415, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nistering the vaccine to such people and warning them to stay indoors until the t...
^^
Line 10, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s should be pr Thus, we see that the authors argument for rejecting the inoculations...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 277, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tration must not seriously consider the authors opinion and look more closely to decide...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, thus, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 44.0 19.6327345309 224% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2607.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 542.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80996309963 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74298403408 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439114391144 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 840.6 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.6871019298 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 100.269230769 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8461538462 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.30769230769 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.266646394682 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0705780126541 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568548342737 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130841474535 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587907474232 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.