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 flue 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 passage, inoculations as a means to fight against cow flu, depite the benefit of saving a considerable amount of lives, should not be administered because of their potential deleterous effect. The author presents several key flaws that make this argument untenable and should review it in consideration of the following points.
One of the major shortcomings of the argument involves the claim that many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered. Stated this way, we are unable to assess the effectiveness of the inoculations as the phrase "many lives" remains ambiguous. In order to address this flaw, the author should include statistical data to demonstrate, say, the probability of the inoculations saving lives.
Another flaw of the passage is that the author assumes that a small possibility that the inoculations can kill a person outweighs the possibility of the person dying as a result of the cow flu. From the statement alone, however, it is impossible to assess whether this holds true. To illustrate, if the probability of the disease killing a person is 99% as opposed to a 0.01% chance of the inoculations ending the same person's live, it appears more sound to administer the inoculations based on the higher probability of saving the live. Had the author provided this type of relevant information, it would considerably strengthen his or her argument.
Lastly, the author's use of the word "routinely" lacks clarity, rendering the argument unconvincing. In the case of the first sentence, we simply do not know how often constitutes "routinely" and this undefined word could significantly alter the number of lives that the inoculations can save if this practice were to be implemented as it stands. Similarly, as for the second sentence, if the inoculations proved to be completely effective and benign if administered once a year, the author's concern would not be the reason not to implement this strategy. It would be advisable for the author, then, to clarify this key word that his or her argument heavily higes upon.
In conclusion, while the argument is not entirely invalid, it is rife with flaws that require a careful examination. Had the author considered the aforementioned points, the argument could be significantly boltered.
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 83
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did t 83
- The following appeared in a health magazine The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they d 83
- 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 70
- If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yo 50
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'second', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'as for', 'in conclusion', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.217592592593 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.164351851852 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0787037037037 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0509259259259 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0324074074074 0.0272364105082 119% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113425925926 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0393518518519 0.0416121511921 95% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.30870442177 2.79052419416 119% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0300925925926 0.026700313972 113% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.145833333333 0.113004496875 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.025462962963 0.0255425247493 100% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00694444444444 0.0127820249294 54% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2349.0 2731.13054187 86% => OK
No of words: 374.0 446.07635468 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.2807486631 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.385026737968 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.291443850267 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.211229946524 0.208842608468 101% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.168449197861 0.135150697306 125% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.30870442177 2.79052419416 119% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51871657754 0.469332199767 111% => OK
Word variations: 56.3790805771 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 24.9333333333 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9343634018 57.7814097925 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.6 141.986410481 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9333333333 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 54.0777183601 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.4953271028 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.451683049617 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140427240215 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0700726711782 0.0829849096947 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.667670803607 0.58762219726 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127696356718 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.213611303317 0.193483328276 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105298430597 0.0970749176394 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.51829091202 0.42659136922 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0898694802254 0.0774707102158 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.312641659376 0.312017818177 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0803176144901 0.0698173142475 115% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.