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 above argument concludes that vaccines are not to be permitted against cow flue due to the reason that there is a limited probability that may cause the death of a person. Due to the lack of facts and evidence regarding this apparent "probability", the argument is uncertain. With the rights of ethics as well as health of most people to consider, the argument supported is invalid because the the flaws it contains.
The first flaw in the argument is the uncertainty of when the research regarding the "small possibility" was conducted. No where is the timing of the claim present in the argument to support the abrupt jump to the conclusion. Time is always an important factor to consider because things change over time. Supposing not enough resources were available back when the research was conducted to the present day. It can be said that the argument then holds on to primitive studies. To improve the argument, it is important to clearly show the date when the data was collected. Additionally, to add value to the research, a new research should be conducted that follows the initial parameters.
The argument also uses absolute words that provide no substantial evidence. Words like "many" and "small" neither indicate largeness of smallness. These loose words, can be misleading as suppose the word "many" actually means saving 10,000 lives for the cost of 1 life. A contextual understanding of the sentence this way, suggests that certainly, the conclusion is not following the safety of the greatest population. Similarly, if the word "small" indicates less than 0.01% of the population, then the probability becomes almost negligble leading the study to be invalid, further causing the argument to be invalid. The problem is the lack of clarity, as the words may represent lesser absolute values, which would change the understanding completely. To improve this, numerical figures must be provided along with percentages in reference ot the populations.
Another flaw present is the location where the disease is deteced. What if the disease was contacted elsewhere in the absense of detection devices? The argument would fail to react to the point as it is solely focused on detected locations. Problems such as contagious diseases cannot be tackled through this and as such the argument can be improved if the locations are defined and the severitiy of the disease is also explained. If it is suggested that the disease is contagious, and it may spread from place to place, the urge to ban vaccinations would certainly not make sense.
In conclusion, with the flaws of time, use of absolute words and the lack of clarity when talking about detection, the argument is flawed in totality. As such, the conclusion that inoculations for cow flu are banned is invalid since we do not know whether the possibility for the demise of one person is likely or not. The argument, as such, is inconvincing and is rejected.
- All cities should devote at least five percent of their budgets to programs that preserve and protect existing parks. 66
- Students are more responsible for their educations than are their teachers. 50
- In a study of the music listening preferences of Hollyland residents conducted by the University of Sunnyland most respondents listed their favorite type of music as country However another study indicated that in Hollyland the most frequently downloaded 62
- 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 86
- 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
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2381 1500
No. of Different Words: 238 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.879 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.696 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.52 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.055 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...e argument supported is invalid because the the flaws it contains. The first flaw ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...e argument supported is invalid because the the flaws it contains. The first flaw ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 131, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: Now
...;small possibility' was conducted. No where is the timing of the claim presen...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, if, may, regarding, similarly, so, then, well, in conclusion, such as, talking about, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2528.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18032786885 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13931149129 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516393442623 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 787.5 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.7110362494 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.12 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.52 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => 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: 0.123648941942 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.033091461141 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400890292706 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0730702811122 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237050320787 0.0628817314937 38% => 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: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.