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 argument against inoculations appears to be astoundingly uninformed as it does not: Give an exact probability of a patient's death, define "routinely", provide other means of disease mitigation, give the opinions of the persons affected, or otherwise fully consider the utilitarian implications of the decision to not inoculate people.
If the argument gave an exact probability of a person dieing from inoculation as well as how frequently people would be inoculated and how many, then proper risk analysis could be performed. The probability can be multiplied by the frequency over a given period of time, such as a year, and then multiplied by the number of people to give an estimate of deaths per year. This can then be compared to the number of deaths anticipated due to the cow flu -- yet another piece of missing information. If there would be more deaths due to inoculation, then of course this would strengthen the argument. Otherwise, it would weaken it.
The argument furthermore does not give any alternatives to the solution of inoculations against cow flu. If it's determined that inoculations reduce the total deaths in a given area, then it is a reasonable solution, unless there is a safer alternative. Had a safer alternative been provided, it would have strengthened the argument. Or similarly, an alternative may exist that is no safer or more harmful but is at least in some way more efficient or agreeable to the affected people.
Another key fact missing is the collective opinion(s) of the people who may be affected by cow flu. If they think that inoculations are a good idea and are willing to participate, then knowing this would weaken the argument. Likewise, if people generally don't want to be inoculated, then this suggests inoculations would be impractical as people may resist them.
A final consideration: How much would it cost to routinely administer inoculations? Does the organization performing inoculations actually have the means to do it? The answers to these questions, if optimistic, would strengthen the argument, and otherwise they'd weaken it. It is obvious that the argument here is lacking a great deal of information. If the evidence pondered above were provided, then one could quite reasonably determine its true strength.
- 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 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 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1861 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.989 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.014 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.098 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The argument against inoculations appear...
^^^
Line 1, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...oes not: Give an exact probability of a patients death, define 'routinely', pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he decision to not inoculate people. If the argument gave an exact probabilit...
^^^
Line 3, column 259, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ultiplied by the frequency over a given period of time, such as a year, and then multiplied by...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ent. Otherwise, it would weaken it. The argument furthermore does not give a...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t or agreeable to the affected people. Another key fact missing is the colle...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 257, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...argument. Likewise, if people generally dont want to be inoculated, then this sugges...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ractical as people may resist them. A final consideration: How much would it...
^^^
Line 9, column 260, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they'd
... strengthen the argument, and otherwise theyd weaken it. It is obvious that the argum...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, furthermore, if, likewise, may, similarly, so, then, well, at least, of course, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1925.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18867924528 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21812144617 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506738544474 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8650181605 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.944444444 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6111111111 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.16876471683 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0560120082094 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0482551841037 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100889112711 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029646904619 0.0628817314937 47% => 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: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.5 12.3882235529 174% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.