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 author here argues that inoculations against cow flu cannot be permitted to register routinely to people in areas where the disease is detected because there is a small possibility that people may die as a result of the very same inoculations. However, this argument relies on many unstated assumptions which must be surfaced and investigated.
Firstly, the author assumes that inoculations will actually prevent infection by cow flu. This kind of assertion needs to be backed by research-based evidence. For example, newly-developed immunizations may have very low effectiveness levels. And, given the corruption we often hear of in the pharmaceutical industry, it is not unimaginable that the incoluation is actually entirely ineffective and actually harmful to patients.
Another assumption made here is that people may die as a result of the inoculations. Again, this type of claim needs evidence. Have any scientifcally-controlled clinical trials been done with patients receiving the inoculations? If it was found that the inoculations caused death in a percentage of patients, the author's argument could be strengthed.
Another assumption made is that people in areas where cow flu is detected are at risk for the disease. It's also not made clear what it means for cow flu to be detected. More information about how the disease is detected and what factors make people prone to infection by cow flu would be essential to make an argument on this case. Does the disease affect primarily the young and elderly? Is it dependent on the surroundings, for example whether people are in regular contact with livestock? If, for example, the disease only affected people with weak immune systems and was detected in a group of elderly tourists visiting a university campus with many healthy young students, it would not make sense to administer the inoculation to students on campus.
Routine administration of the inoculation to all people may also not be the most effective or appropriate way to prevent the disease. More information on who is most prone to the disease and what types of innoculation schedules have been proven to be effective would be indispensible to proposing any policy on treatment.
Overall, the argument made by the author to not routine administration of inoculations against cow flu is unconvincing in its current form. Much fact-finding and research must be done to properly make a logical arugment on this matter.
- Some people believe that increasing violence in the media is the cause of increasing violence in our society, especially among children. Others believe that children's peer groups and parental role models are a much more powerful influence on childre 50
- 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 55
- The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities.Write a response in which you examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent 54
- The following appeared in a memo from the Mayor of the city of Hillview In order to alleviate the serious unemployment problem in our town we should encourage Autotech to build its automobile manufacturing plant in our area The Hillview landfill which has 56
- The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is es 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 2018 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.135 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.174 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.996 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.06 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 314, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... death in a percentage of patients, the authors argument could be strengthed. Anot...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 104, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...s detected are at risk for the disease. Its also not made clear what it means for c...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, for example, kind of, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2078.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28753180662 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24467492419 2.78398813304 117% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488549618321 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 671.4 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 58.7447657243 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.9 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.65 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.322744999263 0.218282227539 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0912205036815 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0894843426435 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169023795599 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104922108869 0.0628817314937 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.