Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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
The given statement prescribes a possible formula to prevent cow-flu related deaths by mass-administration of vaccines. The statement also, though abruptly, rules out such an approach due to the possiblity of vaccinations themselves killing healthy people to which they are administered. Such an approach arrives at an conclusion without examining key facts and evidence concerning the disease and the corresponding innoculation to fight it. This argument is not free of bias and should not be considered at face value.
The argument fails to provide specific data concerning the number of deaths cow flu causes and the same caused by innoculations against it. It only talks of possibilities and not observations. If this data is obtained, one could ask, if cow flu actually causes any deaths in individuals seeking prevention against the disease? If yes, we could question if mass-vaccinations actually reduce the number of deaths. (The argument refers to this as "might"). The answers to these questions could tilt our opinions either way.If they do reduce the death count, the argument definitely weakens.
However, this counclusion brings us to the next loophole in the given argument. The statement mentions of a small possibility that a person will die due to the vaccines themselves. As evident, one must ask for evidence supporting this possiblity in the form of past cases, lab and field trials, etcetera. If no deaths were ever reported, solely due to these innoculations, we could conclude that mass-vaccinations must be encouraged. However, the possibility contrary to this creates a hurdle in this conclusion.
If people are actually dying due to the innoculations, they should not be banned outright for the fact that they save many more lives than they take. A thorough investigation must be conducted into the factors responsible for each death such as age, sex, health condition prior to death, vaccine dose, vaccine frequency, local weather conditions and many more. Knowing these, we could avoid vaccinating the patients prone to ill-effects of the innoculation (For example, the innoculation may be killing the elderly who have low immunity and white blood corpuscle count). Doing so, we could safely protect many while keeping vaccination fatalities zero.
Thus, a wide array of factors must be investigated before we can come to a well-evaluated and just conclusion to this issue. This can potentially save counteless patients from succumbing to cow flu while fatally killing none in the vaccination process.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-30 | adnan_3082 | 73 | view |
| 2019-07-22 | 2195paras | 63 | view |
| 2019-07-13 | Haley_Taro | 89 | view |
| 2018-09-21 | J88 | 66 | view |
| 2018-09-17 | shubhrika | 63 | view |
- A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled foo 50
- In most professions and academic fields, imagination is more important than knowledge. 75
- 1.Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, arc 62
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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 30
- 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. 80
Sentence: The statement also, though abruptly, rules out such an approach due to the possiblity of vaccinations themselves killing healthy people to which they are administered.
Error: possiblity Suggestion: possibility
Sentence: Such an approach arrives at an conclusion without examining key facts and evidence concerning the disease and the corresponding innoculation to fight it.
Error: innoculation Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: The argument fails to provide specific data concerning the number of deaths cow flu causes and the same caused by innoculations against it.
Error: innoculations Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: However, this counclusion brings us to the next loophole in the given argument.
Error: counclusion Suggestion: conclusion
Sentence: As evident, one must ask for evidence supporting this possiblity in the form of past cases, lab and field trials, etcetera.
Error: possiblity Suggestion: possibility
Sentence: If no deaths were ever reported, solely due to these innoculations, we could conclude that mass-vaccinations must be encouraged.
Error: innoculations Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: If people are actually dying due to the innoculations, they should not be banned outright for the fact that they save many more lives than they take.
Error: innoculations Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Knowing these, we could avoid vaccinating the patients prone to ill-effects of the innoculation For example, the innoculation may be killing the elderly who have low immunity and white blood corpuscle count.
Error: innoculation Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: This can potentially save counteless patients from succumbing to cow flu while fatally killing none in the vaccination process.
Error: counteless Suggestion: countless
--------------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
This is an argument essay not an issue one. You developed it in a wrong way.
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 400 350
No. of Characters: 2077 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.472 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.192 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.081 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.779 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.276 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5