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.
In a way, this is a modified version of the moral dilemma called 'The Trolley Problem'. In the Trolley Problem, you assume a scenario where a trolley is running down a track with five people stuck on the track ahead and the trolley will run over them killing all five of them. However there is a catch, you have a lever with you which when pulled directs the trolley to a different track with 1 person stuck on it, and will result in only 1 death. The moral dilemma comes as to whether it is better to let the 5 people die without doing anything or specifically cause the trolley to deviate to a different track and cause the death of one person. I think the issue of inoculations which save most people but result in fewer deaths is analogous to this trolley problem.
Now let's break down the problem a bit, to properly understand what kind of evidence is required to make an opinion. Firstly, we have to properly quantify as to what this 'small possibility' denotes. How small of a possibility it is, and how many deaths at most it will cause by administering the dose to that general population. Once this estimate is obtained, we try to compare it with the deaths that will occur if no inoculation is performed, meaning cow flu will take the toll on lives. In most scenarios, the number in the latter would be higher. If it is not, then there is no point in performing the inoculations as that results in many more deaths, however in our case, the opposite is true and that the deaths due to inoculation are much fewer than without immunization. This leads us to a similar moral dilemma as presented above. Is it better to actively try to do something which will result in a few but guilty deaths, or is it better for us to do nothing and let nature take its course?
A life cannot be labeled a price tag, life is priceless. However, while comparing such moral scenarios, it feels natural to go into scenarios leading to the least amount of deaths. Even though the deaths are because of something we do, because of the small possibility of the inoculation being fatal, we end up saving so many more lives. Now is it fair for the person who will end up dying due to this fault? No, absolutely not, in an ideal world, the inoculations will be perfect with no possibility for complications but the real world tends to be far from ideal. The argument states that the inoculations can't be permitted to be routinely administered because of a small chance of death. However, not administering that causes the person to gain a lifelong of possibilities of ending up getting infected leading to their demise. I'd argue that not doing these inoculations ends up being just as guilty as doing the inoculations and ending up with someone dead from the complications. Just the difference being the latter has lesser deaths than the previous counterpart.
Not related to cow flu, however in the recent Covid-19 pandemic we saw this play out, groups and localities of people who were not vaccinated were in hospitals and dying at a nightmarishly higher rate than the vaccinated groups. Also another benefit to inoculations is that after a point, herd immunity is achieved. Herd immunity is a concept where most of the community is immunized leading to a less chance for the unimmunized to catch the disease. This is good because even if the inoculations are mandated, there will be some outliers who will do whatever it takes to bypass or skip the immunization. Even these individuals due to herd immunity will face a lesser risk throughout their lives, which as a society is what you call a win-win situation.
So in short, I do believe these inoculations should be routinely administered, because in the end less deaths is better than more deaths.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 665 350
No. of Characters: 3015 1500
No. of Different Words: 282 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.078 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.534 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.704 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.254 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.444 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...run over them killing all five of them. However there is a catch, you have a lever with...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 471, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...n only 1 death. The moral dilemma comes as to whether it is better to let the 5 people die wi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 609, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...e argument states that the inoculations cant be permitted to be routinely administer...
^^^^
Line 5, column 833, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
...tting infected leading to their demise. Id argue that not doing these inoculations...
^^
Line 5, column 836, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ng infected leading to their demise. Id argue that not doing these inoculations ends ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 836, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Id) must be used with a third-person verb: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ng infected leading to their demise. Id argue that not doing these inoculations ends ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 230, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...higher rate than the vaccinated groups. Also another benefit to inoculations is that...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, so, then, while, as to, i think, in short, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 91.0 55.5748502994 164% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3082.0 2260.96107784 136% => OK
No of words: 664.0 441.139720559 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.64156626506 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07623851424 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71786740608 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 292.0 204.123752495 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439759036145 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 985.5 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6440603651 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.071428571 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7142857143 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.21428571429 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311258674761 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0808226249619 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595711657475 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163715358496 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563280655211 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.93 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.49 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.