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.
Medicine has advanced over the years and has allowed for more lives to be saved. In regards to inoculations against the cow flu there are several reasons why medicine needs to continue to advance. While lives are being saved thanks to the vaccines, there is still a small chance of eminent death. Medicine has advanced for the sake of saving lives and no one would ethically vote to continue a practice if people were certain to die. However, if an area was detected with cow flu there should be a chance for those affected to be vaccinated.
There are many areas where a high population of cows are needed in order for families to survive. Areas, such as those with companies interested in the dairy and meat industry, should be routinely managed in order to prevent the spread of a disease. These areas cannot evade the chance of a cow flu breakout. However, the community should not be subject to unwarranted routine vaccinations regardless of a breakout. There is no solid definition to how routine inoculations should be implemented. More research should be done to investigate how receiving a cow flu vaccine affects a person over time. However, on the chance that a break out does occur, community members should be allowed to have access to inoculations by choice.
The results of inoculations against cow flu have asserted that there is a small possibility that a person might die. Doctors, scientists and researchers should look further into the reason of this possibility. If people are more likely to survive thanks to this vaccine then clearly it should not be disregarded. Even if one life could be saved, it is an opportunity that should be available to someone who is affected by cow flu. On the other hand, the idea that some people might have the risk of death when they are seeking medicine to save their life implies that there is still more research that needs to be conducted. There might be hidden implications that are tied to these deaths, such as allergies that can be avoided.
No one should be forced to receive inoculations against their own will. It goes too far to say that routine inoculations should be administered to areas where the disease is detected. The question should also be asked as to how these detections are being made and how the areas are being configured? Are the deaths related to the vaccine directly due to those affected by the disease? Or, was the prevention of obtaining the disease the reason for getting the vaccine? There are too many unanswered questions for the argument to hold itself up. While the vaccine should be accessible to those affected by cow flu throughout an area, the administration of routine vaccinations should not be forced upon a community without solid research that does not have a chance of death on its back.
- 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. 50
- 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 73
- Nations should require a national curriculum. 66
- 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 77
- Nations should require a national educational curriculum 54
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2269 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.707 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.615 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.28 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.925 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.452 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 82, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: Regarding; With regard to
...has allowed for more lives to be saved. In regards to inoculations against the cow flu there ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 211, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...er into the reason of this possibility. If people are more likely to survive thank...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, so, still, then, while, as to, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 43.0 19.6327345309 219% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2319.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8112033195 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67809216579 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435684647303 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 756.9 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1576519194 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.76 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.28 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.28 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.333607935941 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107667867184 0.0743258471296 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0760090854245 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220186913405 0.128457276422 171% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0122546028876 0.0628817314937 19% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.