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
In this statement, the author concludes that the administration of the inoculation on the daily basis can not be permissible in the case of the disease known as cow flu. However, the author supports the argument with the three assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the writer presumes without evidence, that the practice of inoculation is in the process to save many lives. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps, there is a risk but that doesn't say that it is not good to go with the inoculation. Inoculation likely is dangerous and the result cannot be predicted somewhat it is risky too and it is possible that if a person who has gone through the prevention would also have a chance to go in the danger. For example, perhaps a person has tried to save himself from the disease and caught in the phase which led them into the phase which cannot be preventable and treatable. In addition, even if the person has no fear in their mind there is a chance. If either case is true, then the author claims are not warranted and his suggestion that there is no certainty of the thing which occurs in life. Hence, fearing and avoiding may be put in more danger.
Second of all, it is also possible that there are people who have been to the inoculation and land up into the severity of the disease and this is concluded by the author, there is a mild threat but if the life would be dreadful then this danger would cause a major issue. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author's contention can be avoided if the person fails then the worst scenario can be possible.
Finally, even if it is true that the disease has been epidemic then there is an obvious chance of occurring more and spreading it wisely. Which can be a loss for a human. The author assumes that recovering from the disease reduces the mortality rate as compared to the prevention from the problem. If it is not true then the author assertion is invalid and his recommendation does little to convince.
In conclusion, it is possible to save a life from inoculation no matter how hard the disease is will crave the intended effect.
However, as it stands flaw the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide additional evidence regarding the safety of the human being without being inoculated.
| 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 |
- Money on pet instead on them 70
- Money on pet and money on them 70
- 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 55
- The following letter is from a group of Linford College alumni to the chair of the art department at the college In a recent survey of college graduates 90 percent agreed that participating in an internship increased their chances of finding a job after g 60
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts Write a response in which you d 54
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 434 350
No. of Characters: 1975 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.564 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.551 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.602 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.394 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.553 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 167, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ever, this may not be the case. Perhaps, there is a risk but that doesnt say that...
^^
Line 3, column 194, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ase. Perhaps, there is a risk but that doesnt say that it is not good to go with the ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 321, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...er of these scenarios is true, then the authors contention can be avoided if the person...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, thus, for example, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2034.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 433.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.6974595843 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67523828312 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461893764434 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 641.7 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.3950745379 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.052631579 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7894736842 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.201709704405 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0597939418575 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.057721339152 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106031955487 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554604440447 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => 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: 10.28 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => 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.