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.
Vaccinations are a way in which some important disease-fighting elements can be injected into a person's body. They help the person to develop antibodies against the virus or flu and increase his or her immunity. The given argument states that many lives can be saved if the correct vaccinations are routinely given to people in the areas where cow flu is detected. But, it also says that since there is a small possibility that a person might die due to the vaccination, this process cannot be permitted. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss why I completely disagree with the stated argument.
Firstly, it mentions that there is a small possibility that a person might die as a result of the inoculations. The argument mentions this point without even giving any verified or valid data. How do we know how many people have died because of inoculation? How many people were actually administered the vaccine and how many of them died? It might be possible that the given statement is completely false, as it does not have the numbers to prove it.
Moreover, if some people died after taking the vaccine how can we surely say that they died only because of the cow flu vaccine? It might be that the people might have died because of some other disease that they were previously suffering from. It seems there has been no research done on the actual cause of the death as the statement does not say that they died because of the inoculation.
Lastly, I would say that vaccinations are a very efficient way to quickly gain immunity to fight disease. If there is valid data suggesting that the vaccinations are effective then they should definitely be administered to people. It might be possible that the vaccination routine might be leading to some issues. This routine might be changed in order to make it easier for people to take their vaccines.
Hence, in conclusion, I would say that the given argument makes wrong conclusions, without any proper facts and sample data. Unless there is some solid proof that shows that people are dying because of the vaccine, the vaccine should be routinely administered to people in order to increase their immunity against cow flu and in order to make their community healthier.
| 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 |
- 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 60
- College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to ad 58
- College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to ad 58
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1809 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.723 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.609 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 114 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.619 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.421 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 107, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...quickly gain immunity to fight disease. If there is valid data suggesting that the...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1854.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 383.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8407310705 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69198577652 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464751958225 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 596.7 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8874993089 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5789473684 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1578947368 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.370844425052 0.218282227539 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114378596261 0.0743258471296 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0807117362041 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202581114975 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0706481137122 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => 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.