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.
While it may be true that the cow flue vaccine may be fatal in some cases, the author does not make a pellucid case regarding the administration of the vaccinations. The paragraph bases it's argument on the 'small possiblity' of fatality and while it may be true, the argument is rife with holes and does not make a cogent argument as to why the flu should not be administered routinely.
The paragraph states that many lives may be saved if the cow flu innoculations were routinely administered to the people in the disease prevalent area. Nowhere is it mentioned that on what basis did the author make this assumption. There is no survey or no experimental results mentioned. It is likely that the statement is conjecture and there is no physical evidence to prove it. If there was evidence to prove that a test group of subjects were inoculated against the cow flu and all of them survived, then it is likely that the inoculation may work on a large scale. But as there is no such evidence, we cannot conclude the efficaciousness of the inoculations.
The author mentions that the inoculations are to be given to all the people in the disease affected region. There is no evidence to support why would all the people in the region require inoculation. It is likely that a small group of people are naturally immune to the disease and thus introducing their body to the foreign pathogen in the form of an inoculation will be a waste. Also the author talks about routine administration of the inoculation. While it may be true, that the routine inoculation of the people is necessary, it is likely that such inoculations may lead to further succeptibility to the disease.
The paragraph goes on to state that there may be a small possiblity of fatality due to the inoculations and while this may be true, there is no evidence to support it. It is possible that during their test phase, they administered it to a person who was already infected with the disease and it only further aggravated the disease and lead to the person's death. There is no evidence to support the fatal nature of the inoculation and even if there was a test where they found such results, we do not know the scope and legiblity of the test. It is likely that they conducted the test on only a group of 10 people and extrapolated the results to the entire population. It is also possible that the test was on patients who were already affected, in which case the test results would be moot. We just do not know.
Based on the examination of the above factors, it is clear that the paragraph is rife with holes and unstated assumptions. While the author's statements may be true, it is unlikely to convince anyone to take the steps mentioned by the author. Further evidence is required to clearly explore the reaches of the argument.
- 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 30
- 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
- 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 50
- 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
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2269 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.547 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.736 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.682 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.688 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 382, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...form of an inoculation will be a waste. Also the author talks about routine administ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 348, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
... aggravated the disease and lead to the persons death. There is no evidence to support ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 243, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...take the steps mentioned by the author. Further evidence is required to clearly explore...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, while, as to, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 42.0 19.6327345309 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2316.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.64128256513 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79879647595 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.382765531062 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 773.1 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3523329948 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.272727273 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6818181818 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.36363636364 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.295136438817 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0867118431653 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0813342118967 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157819720512 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0912742672111 0.0628817314937 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.93 12.5979740519 79% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.