"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 the 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
According to the argument, there is a "small possibility" for a person to die due to inoculations and hence these should not be routinely administered to the people. However, I think the argument lacks essential information regarding this diseases as well as the vaccination due to which we cannot draw the conclusion as stated in the argument.
First, we do not know how lethal is this disease? What is the fatality rate? What is the fatality rate of the vaccination? If the fatality rate of both the vaccination and disease are relatively same (margin of about 10~20%), the vaccine is totally useless. The vaccine should not be even given to one person, let alone routinely. If the fatality rate of cow disease is, for instance, 99% and that of vaccine is less than 1%, then it is obviously a good idea to provide vaccination to people who are in "high danger"
Yet, we cannot say about "routinely" being administered, because we do not know how this disease is spread? Is it virulent? Is it contagious or it can be spread only via cows? If contagious, how contagious? What does exactly routinely mean in the passage? How many people would be given this vaccine regularly? Who are these people?
Third, do we have medicines available for this disease? What is their efficacy? Can the medicines at least prevent deaths? If yes, vaccines should definitely not be given for in this case as the fatality rate of inoculation will be higher than the disease itself. Moreover, would the vaccination work on the cows? If yes, the cows should definitely be given this vaccine because this will lead to disease getting eradicated from the root.
For these reasons, I believe that the author jumped too quickly to conclusion on the basis of little information available. Careful investigation and analysis must be done before making decisions as only that will lead to saving of lives rather than making a hurried decision on incomplete information.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-29 | dkim1206 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | wcfr | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-16 | riyarmy | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | Nowshin Tabassum | 70 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | Mizanur_Rahman | 55 | view |
- Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry In order to stop the erosion we should charge people for using the beaches Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term i 60
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address 70
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 83
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasonin 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura Socks Inc A recent study of Dura Socks customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process which ensures that our soc 50
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 331 350
No. of Characters: 1557 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.265 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.704 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.673 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 54 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.391 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.636 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 37, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
According to the argument, there is a 'small possibility' for a per...
^
Line 1, column 245, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...t lacks essential information regarding this diseases as well as the vaccination due...
^^^^
Line 3, column 525, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eople who are in 'high danger' Yet, we cannot say about 'routinely...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, third, well, at least, for instance, i think, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1651.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 330.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.00303030303 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00621486652 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512121212121 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 535.5 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 72.9549985826 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.0454545455 119.503703932 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.0 23.324526521 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.18181818182 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.201213323172 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0548294019834 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508122715931 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118356120604 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0451660834616 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 14.3799401198 67% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.