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.
As vaccinations come under closer scrutiny, arguments regarding their usage creep up more and more. One such given argument states that routine inoculations against cow flu should not be administered under the threat of death due to the vaccination, even if the vaccinations may have a tendency to save many lives. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the argument, it must be determined how likely someone is to die from an inoculation versus their likeliness to die from the disease itself, as well as the reasons for the risk behind the inoculations. Additionally, the argument should consider whether the benefits outweigh the risks for inoculating people in regions where the disease is not detected, compared to regions where it is.
While the argument states that the risk of death due to inoculation is not worth routine inoculation, it fails to compare these risks to the potential benefits of saving lives from cow flu. It is possible that the number of lives saved by routine inoculation against cow flu would drastically outweight the number of deaths incurred inadvertantly due to the inoculation. In such a situation, conventional wisdom suggests to save more lives through routinely inonculating, even at the expense of a few lives, few and far between, lost due to the inoculations. Such a plan has been followed numerously in the past for eradicating other diseases, most notably smallpox. While smallpox used to be one of the most feared and deadliest maladies, it was virtually eradicated by the 20th century due to routine administration of inoculation. Even if a number of early patients died due to an unexpected response to the vaccine, this number (in the low hundreds at most) could not even begin to match the tens of thousands who had died, or who would have died in the future, had not the vaccine been routinely administered in the U.S. Hence, while it is important to guarantee that the vaccine is as safe as possible in order to reduce deaths due to inoculations, if the threat of death from inoculation is much lower than the threat of death from the disease, then the argument falls short and the vaccines should be routinely administered. If, on the other hand, the administration of vaccines is still in a very experimental stage where the possibility of death due to the vaccine actually outweighs death due to the disease, then the argument is given credence and it makes sense, at least for the moment, to prohibit routine administration of the inoculations.
Additionally, further research should be conducted on the exact nature of the death due to the vaccinations, as this may also play a role in evaluating the argument. Since there is a small possibility that someone will die from being inoculated, it is implied that some patients or experimental test subjects (including mice) in the past may have died or come close to death by use of the vaccine. However, we cannot assume that the risk is due to the inoculation formula itself, as the previous instances of death could have something to do with the circumstances that they were carried out under, such as a contaminated needle. In such a situation, the argument should be revised to advocate for a strong regulation of inoculations to prevent against endangering situations such as these, while the actually inoculation formula itself should still be advocated for routine usage. If, on the other hand, the instances of death were in fact due to the chemicals in the inoculation formula, it would lend credence to the argument in that routine administration of the vaccine should not be embraced too strongly. Even then, the costs would still have to be weighed with the benefits, as one should compare the potential lives saved through vaccinating with the potential lives lost due to dangerous reactions to the vaccine.
Finally, an additional point that the argument could consider is the potential of vaccinating only in areas where the disease is detected. If the disease is found in a small area of only a hundred square miles, in a vast country the size of the U.S., then this would lend support for the argument: routine administration of the vaccine to everyone in the country is a poor solution when in fact the disease is narrowly confined to a small geographic area. However, if the disease is pervasive to a very large portion of the country, then it may make sense to routinely vaccinate all members of the country if the benefits indeed outweigh the cost, as discussed earlier.
Altogether, the argument makes critical assumptions where additional evidence may either advance or detract from the stated opinion. A further comparison of the costs of inoculating versus the benefits of inoculating is in order, in order to ascertain whether the conclusion to not vaccinate is logically founded. Furthermore, additional research should be spent on the exact reasons for the dangers of vaccinating, in order to determine whether it is the vaccine itself that is dangerous, as proposed by the argument, or a distinctly different factor that can be addressed separately apart from prohibiting vaccinations. The true geographic extent of the disease should also be considered to determine whether the vaccinations should be routine throughout the country or only in localized areas. Answering these questions is paramount to human health.
- 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 69
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasing time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the com 89
- “Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security.” Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider 66
- The following is from a recent email from the Diord Corp. Human Resources Manager: “Tobor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days. Tobor amended its employee insurance 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 888 350
----------------------
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 888 350
No. of Characters: 4380 1500
No. of Different Words: 319 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.459 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.932 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.898 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 306 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 256 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 180 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 118 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.154 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.707 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.769 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests saving'.
Suggestion: suggests saving
...n such a situation, conventional wisdom suggests to save more lives through routinely inonculati...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, well, while, apart from, at least, in fact, such as, as well 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: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 139.0 55.5748502994 250% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 38.0 16.3942115768 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4473.0 2260.96107784 198% => OK
No of words: 887.0 441.139720559 201% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0428410372 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.45733865759 4.56307096286 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97745272601 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 344.0 204.123752495 169% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.387824126268 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1442.7 705.55239521 204% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 17.0 2.70958083832 627% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 35.0 22.8473053892 153% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 100.618996218 57.8364921388 174% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.92 119.503703932 150% => OK
Words per sentence: 35.48 23.324526521 152% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92 5.70786347227 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269111551989 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0822926536444 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530175434141 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15901060125 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0439181767522 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.0 14.3799401198 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.95 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.9 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 184.0 98.500998004 187% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.0 11.1389221557 144% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.