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.
The writer contends that although inoculations against cow flu may substantially reduce mortality rates, the fact that some individuals may die as a result of inoculation should hinder its routine administration, even in areas where the disease is detected. Although the argument is not implausible, some additional evidence must be provided to make it sound and reasonable.
First, the mortality rates as a result of the inoculation should be compared with the mortality rates from the disease itself. If the latter is significantly higher, it would make sense to vaccinate as many people in the infected areas as possible. Put differently, the writer should acknowledge the simple logic that if the medicine is less harmful than the malady, it should be implemented even if the risk for some casualties does exist.
Second, death and complete recovery may not, for sure, be the only two possible outcomes of the cow flu. If a relatively high rate of infected individuals is expected to experience severe and long-lasting post-flu complications, then inoculations may be considered even if their mortality rate exceeds that of the flu. The writer must thus provide more information regarding the probabilities to develop severe symptoms after, and not only during, the recovery.
Third, the author does not account for the specific characteristics affecting the probability that an individual will die as a result of the inoculation. If it turns out, for example, that only old people are at risk of dying after receiving a vaccine, a plausible solution would be to vaccinate only the younger population, reducing thereby the infection rates and providing fair protection even to those who have not been vaccinated. The same reasoning holds for the information regarding the cow flu itself. If children and young adults are not at risk to develop severe symptoms and dying from the infection then one might consider vaccinating only the older population.
Curbing the spread of dangerous infectious diseases is similar to mastering armies and going to war: some strategies may prove to be effective, while others may turn out to be futile, if not menacing. To make the right choice, the writer must supplement his argument with relevant information, regarding both alternatives: the routine administration of inoculations against flu, and eschewing inoculations due to the high risks they entail, and searching for other ways to stymie the deleterious disease.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-07 | Tabellini22 | 66 | view |
| 2020-07-19 | aqzakir | 50 | view |
- The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette a local newspaper The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city s limited budget However at som 73
- 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 i 66
- Governments should offer free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 74
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacter 85
- 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 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, third, thus, while, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2083.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 391.0 442.535393258 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3273657289 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.051945067 2.79657885939 109% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 215.323595506 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524296675192 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 704.065955056 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 23.0359550562 117% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.7743687842 60.3974514979 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.785714286 118.986275619 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9285714286 23.4991977007 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 5.21951772744 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 10.2758426966 10% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.225925035162 0.243740707755 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0784046700454 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596288531573 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133557204044 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433300162946 0.0667264976115 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.8420337079 73% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.1743820225 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 100.480337079 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 11.8971910112 134% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.2143820225 114% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.7820224719 153% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.