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.
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, the author believes that we cannot permit inoculation against cow flu to be routinely implemented. The author has come to this conclusion based on the small possibility that a person will die as a result of inoculations. However, I think we need more information to fully evaluate the argument and we cannot rely on the unfounded assumptions to accept the conclusion.
First of all, the author stated that there is a small possibility that a person will die because of inoculations but he/she did not provide any information about the number of dies. It is possible that only one person died because of inoculation. Although even the life of one person is so important, we cannot rely on this to ban the inoculations against cow flu. Moreover, it is possible that if they ban the inoculation more people will die because of cow flu compare with inoculation. So we need more information about the rate of death because of the inoculation and also the possible death in the absence of the inoculation and because of cow flu to fully evaluate the argument.
Secondly, the author cited that there is a small possibility of dyeing a person because of the inoculations but did not mention whether it is the main reason for possible death or not? It is possible that some people who have a weak immune system and suffered from other diseases will prone to death because of the inoculation. So the inoculation is not the main reason for their death and there are other factors that need to be considered. The author should provide more info about the main reasons for the possible death of persons who will die after inoculation. If the inoculation will not the main reason for possible death, then the veracity of the conclusion is weakening.
Finally, the author said that many lives might be saved if inoculations routinely implemented but he/she did not mention the exact number of saved life in infected areas. It is possible that almost all of the people survived and only sensitive groups, which I have mentioned above, were died because of the previous diseases. So, if most of the people will survive from cow flu because of inoculation, we cannot stop routinely implementation of inoculations. So we need more data about the areas where the disease is detected, the number of people who survived because of inoculation and the people who died even after inoculation.
To sum it all, the author's conclusion was based on several unfounded assumptions. We need more information and data in order to evaluate the argument. Only after receiving such information we can fully evaluate the persuasiveness of the argument and give a comprehensive conclusion.
| 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 |
- Governments should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In develop 50
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complain 60
- 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 i 70
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather tha 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 456 350
No. of Characters: 2186 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.621 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.794 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.79 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.608 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.393 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.599 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.23 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 199, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ected areas. It is possible that almost all of the people survived and only sensitive grou...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...fter inoculation. To sum it all, the authors conclusion was based on several unfound...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, i think, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2239.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 454.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93171806167 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87925569101 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.367841409692 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 742.5 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6971637529 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.95 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.410018556078 0.218282227539 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141486597617 0.0743258471296 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746270869226 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.238099734618 0.128457276422 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113674366439 0.0628817314937 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.09 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.