In the prompt, it is stated that routine administration of inoculations against cow flu cannot be permitted. This is declared on the basis of the fact that there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations. However, the argument made here has some unexamined factors which must be evaluated, before determining its merit.
Firstly, the percentage of fatalities that might occur due to the inoculations has not been mentioned. This is very important because if it affects only a minute fraction adversely, it might be worth considering administering the inoculation to the masses. This is because not inoculating anyone could result in a loss of lives which might be manyfold of this fraction. For instance, if the inoculation is proved fatal for only 0.01% of the people who have been administered the dose, and not inoculating anyone results in a 1% death among the population residing in the affected area, it is pragmatic to initiate the inoculation programme because it would result in the saving of a lot more lives than what would occur in the absence of the programme. If the above scenario is true, the argument is significantly weakened.
Further, the factor of co-morbidities has not been mentioned. It might happen that the inoculation only proves fatal for people suffering from particular co-morbidities. Such people could then be removed from the inoculation group and the rest of the population can be safely administered. For instance, it might happen that the inoculation proves fatal for people who are suffering from diabetes. The inoculation might react with their body in a way that is not suited for their condition and hence proves fatal for them. So it is necessary that this factor be examined for the effective evaluation of the argument, which would get weakened if the above scenario is true.
Lastly, the age group and demographic of the inoculation recipients have not been mentioned. It might be that the inoculation adversely affects a particular age group or a certain demographic of people based on their genetics. For example, the inoculation might prove fatal for senior citizens as their bodies might not be able to recover from the effects of the inoculation, whereas the immune system of younger people could efficiently recover in a short time. It might also be harmful for a particular demographic, such as people with high melatonin content in their skin might be harmfully affected by the inoculation. In such a case too, it would be prudent to isolate specific people and administer the inoculation for the remaining population, to save a maximum number of lives. This factor needs to be properly analyzed before the argument could be evaluated, as this too, would weaken the argument.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to lack of evidence and absence of a systematic research study. If the above factors are meticulously analyzed, it would be possible to evaluate the argument effectively based on the results.
- 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 discuss 66
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 66
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing During the past year Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on the job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are one hour shorter than our 78
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents 70
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 50
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, so, then, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2543.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.086 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99517678944 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 833.4 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7271592529 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.590909091 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7272727273 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95454545455 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.289200616074 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0975698271532 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0707148772616 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17334747973 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0841928559709 0.0628817314937 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, so, then, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2543.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.086 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99517678944 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 833.4 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7271592529 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.590909091 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7272727273 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95454545455 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.289200616074 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0975698271532 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0707148772616 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17334747973 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0841928559709 0.0628817314937 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.