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 inoculation 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.
The argument here states that the inoculations against cow flu would result in saving in lives of many people if it were routinely administered to all the people in areas where the disease was detected, however there is a slight possibility that such inocutaions may result in a death of a person and so one should not permit the routine administeration of such inoculations.This argument is not valid and requires further examining before reaching to a final conclusion.
First of all one needs to find out if their is an alternative to inoculations which is safer and can prevent cow flu effectively. If such an alternative is available or can be produced then definitely the use of inoculations should be stopped, as the new alternative available would strike of the small possibility of people dying because of inoculations.
Secondly, If we do not find an alternative to the inoculations then we have to look at the number of people dying because of cow flu. If the number is high when compared to the number of people dying because of the routinely administered inoculations then one has to take a chance and weigh the situation more objectively. If routinely administered inoculations helps in preventing cow flu and thereby saving large number of lives contrast to a few abberent cases of death due to them then their use should be continued and permited.
Third, One needs to check for other measures that can be taken in areas affected by the disease. The sanitaion issues, the eating habbits or any method through which the cow's affected by the flu can be detected and segregated so that further damage is controlled.
After weighing the above three cases objectively and thouroughly one can reach at a conclusion whether to permit or not permit the use of inoculations.
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in area 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 60
- All too often companies hire outside Consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were spending more time listening to their own employees such consultants would be unnecessary. Write a response in which you discus 50
- 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 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 298, Rule ID: AND_SO_ONE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'and so on' (="etc.")?
Suggestion: and so on
...aions may result in a death of a person and so one should not permit the routine administe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 376, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...ne administeration of such inoculations.This argument is not valid and requires furt...
^^^^
Line 3, column 39, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
... First of all one needs to find out if their is an alternative to inoculations which...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'as to', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.193037974684 0.25644967241 75% => OK
Verbs: 0.193037974684 0.15541462614 124% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0822784810127 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0727848101266 0.0520304965353 140% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0189873417722 0.0272364105082 70% => OK
Prepositions: 0.139240506329 0.125424944231 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0791139240506 0.0416121511921 190% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 3.06019747092 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0379746835443 0.026700313972 142% => OK
Particles: 0.00316455696203 0.001811407834 175% => OK
Determiners: 0.104430379747 0.113004496875 92% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0348101265823 0.0255425247493 136% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0158227848101 0.0127820249294 124% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1789.0 2731.13054187 66% => OK
No of words: 302.0 446.07635468 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.9238410596 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.334437086093 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.238410596026 0.287650121315 83% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.188741721854 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.139072847682 0.135150697306 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06019747092 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 207.018472906 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476821192053 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 46.8268656058 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 9.0 20.039408867 45% => More sentences wanted.
Sentence length: 33.5555555556 23.2022227129 145% => OK
Sentence length SD: 104.406376041 57.7814097925 181% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 198.777777778 141.986410481 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.5555555556 23.2022227129 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.33333333333 0.724660767414 184% => Less Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 57.3966151582 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.44444444444 1.8405768891 78% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.530420291437 0.441005458295 120% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.223314904151 0.135418324435 165% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0843507877929 0.0829849096947 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.788795270891 0.58762219726 134% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.132363035504 0.147661913831 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.257733909479 0.193483328276 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10463604523 0.0970749176394 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.324719076306 0.42659136922 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.123632522996 0.0774707102158 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321826572132 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121729682543 0.0698173142475 174% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 8.0 14.657635468 55% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.