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 statement given is generally vague in details and requires a deeper understanding of cow flu statistics in order to have an educated decision executed. first, the statement reads "Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flue were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected". To me, this sentence doesn't hold any weight because of the word "might" as well as the vagueness of the phrase "Many lives". Also, the statement claims that there is a small possibility of a person dying as a result of the inoculation. A more definitive statistic regarding the probability of a person dying because of the cow flu inoculation is much needed.
The statement that lives "might" be saved generally holds no weight and can't be considered until specific information is received. Suppose that we receive information stating that administering cow flu inoculations will save 20% of all lives in the affected area. This statistic obviously makes a stronger case for the inoculations to be administered in the affected area. The lower the percentage falls makes the statement weaker and is thus not as likely to be carried out.
Now, we also need more information regarding the possibility of people dying from receiving a cow flu inoculation. In general, the larger the percentage of people that die from an inoculation the weaker the statement. This then makes the statement stronger as long as the percentage of deaths is trending lower.
Looking at the issue more closely, there is one specific comparison will help to make the best decision. This comparison is the percentage of lives saved over the percentage of lives lost. The inoculations should be carried out if and only if the percentage of lives saved is greater than the percentage of lives lost. For example, if inoculations kill 15% of the local population but save 16% it is beneficial to carry out the inoculations. Conversely, if inoculations kill 15% and save only 14% it is not beneficial to administer the cow flu inoculations.
In summary, we found that the statement was excluding important statistics about the effect inoculations have on the local population. Specifically it is vital to know the percentage of lives saved and lives lost from the cow flu inoculations. In general as the percentage of lives saved increases, the statement is strengthened and weakened otherwise. The percentage of lives saved to lives lost is thus inversely related and thus the statement is strengthened when the percentage of lives lost is decreased. From this we can then see that ratio of lives saved to lives lost becomes important. As long as the percentage of lives saved is greater than the percentage of lives lost the statement is strengthened, and weakened otherwise.
- 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 50
- 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 46
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2264 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.932 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.973 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.363 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.225 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 157, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
... to have an educated decision executed. first, the statement reads 'Many lives m...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 358, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...is detected'. To me, this sentence doesnt hold any weight because of the word &ap...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 83, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... be saved generally holds no weight and cant be considered until specific informatio...
^^^^
Line 5, column 258, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
... This then makes the statement stronger as long as the percentage of deaths is tre...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, if, look, regarding, so, then, thus, well, for example, in general, in summary, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2365.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 458.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16375545852 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62611441266 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19640886218 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.397379912664 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 23.4733489226 57.8364921388 41% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 102.826086957 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9130434783 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.78260869565 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.354604377477 0.218282227539 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.12014062237 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0921004709746 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210789791483 0.128457276422 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0710673088227 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.41 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.