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.
The statement shows the uncertainty in which the author is making a suggestion. Once the problem is identified and solution is known, it would be unreasonable and absurd to not fix the issue, just because there might be some trivial uncertainties in it. The author in the first part of the statement suggests that the inoculation against this cow flu, if routinely administered to all the people where the disease is detected can mitigate the situation and make the situation better, but inconsiderably and superficially suggests that as there is a small possibility of the number of deaths associated, so the regular inoculation should be avoided. If using a method can avoid a major loss, its a better idea to employ that method even if its associated to a small loss.
The author fails to provide or give a clear picture on what is the death rate associated with this particular inoculation against the cow flu. The authors suggestion would have been substantiated, if there is a higher death rate or any lethal side effects associated with administering this particular cow flu. But in the first part he clearly mentions that the lives could be saved if inoculations against this cow flu is routinely administered in the affected areas. Even for this part of the statement it would be clearer if the author provides with the list of areas that have been affected by this cow flu, what is the age group, the number of people who have encountered this flu, what are their symptoms. The suggestions the author is claiming are superficial and unsubstantiated.
Further, there is a higher possibility that older people who have encountered this cow flu, with lower immunity, are the ones who are facing the death because of this inoculation. It could be that the inoculation is working on people less than 60 years and is saving lives of many, but is not able to work on weaker immunity bodies or older bodies. But the bright side is that its saving many lives of children and others. The author is clearly overlooking all these major possibilities and blatantly suggesting its better to avoid the routine administration of the inoculation. The suggestion would have been more reasonable, and could have been considered if the inoculation is affecting everyone negative and if the author have provided a proof for it.
Additionally, there is an equal chance or possibilities that the small population of who are facing the death because of this inoculation could have comorbities, like diabetes or other pre-existing ailments, due to which their immunity is lesser compared to the others or it could be that the inoculation is counter-reactive because of their other medications. To declare any sort of outright suggestion the author should have considered all the above scenarios, but clearly the author fails to provide the data for all the above-mentioned scenarios, and was unreasonable by suggesting that routine administering of the inoculation should be avoided. I strongly believe that author must provide data of the people who got affected, their age group and if they have any pre-existing ailments, and observe how the inoculation is working on the people, before jumping into a conclusion of not permitting the routine inoculation against the cow flu. It's always better to save the lot rather thinking about the small loss.
| 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 |
- Scientific theories which most people consider as fact almost invariably prove to be inaccurate Thus one should look upon any information described as factual with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future 66
- Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia Using an observation centered approach to studying Tertian culture he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by the 53
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of the Juniper Cafe a small local coffee shop in the downtown area of a small American city We must reduce overhead here at the cafe Instead of opening at 6 am weekdays we will now open at 8 am On week 68
- The best way to teach is to praise the positive actions and ignore the negative ones 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 permit i 85
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 555 350
No. of Characters: 2738 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.854 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.945 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.811 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 692, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
... using a method can avoid a major loss, its a better idea to employ that method eve...
^^^
Line 3, column 149, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ar inoculation against the cow flu. The authors suggestion would have been substantiate...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 790, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng are superficial and unsubstantiated. Further, there is a higher possibility t...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 757, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he author have provided a proof for it. Additionally, there is an equal chance o...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 947, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: It's; It is
...outine inoculation against the cow flu. Its always better to save the lot rather th...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, look, so, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2790.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 555.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02702702703 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00299663663 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.394594594595 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 895.5 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 93.5766174497 57.8364921388 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.0 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8333333333 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.83333333333 5.70786347227 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285329408229 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.099609198966 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790833191279 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193976882395 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0208406870022 0.0628817314937 33% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.49 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.5 12.3882235529 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => 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.