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 inoculation, we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.
The argument states that we cannot permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered even if many lives might be saved if these inoculations are routinely administered to all people in area where disease is detected as there is a small chance that a person will die as a result of the inoculations. This argument is has reasons which can be held invalid.
The first flaw in this argument is lack of vital information to strengthen the conclusion. The argument states that a person will die as a result of inoculations but does not provide any data to prove that premise. There might be some different factors along with inoculations which may be lethal for a person who has contracted this disease. For example, it could be the immune system of a person, the environment in which the person lives, quality of administered inoculation, the process of administering the inoculation etc. The argument states no such factor.
Secondly, this argument generalizes the conclusion based on a very small sample. If a small group of people died after being administered with inoculations, it does not prove that each and every person who will be administered with this inoculations will be dead. It should examine a large sample from different examples of people who were given this inoculation and construct the conclusion based on those examples.
Another flaw in this argument is lack of benchmark. The argument states that inoculations could be lethal for a person but there is no way to compare this conclusion with a studied phenomenon which has a large set of evidences supporting this conclusion. The conclusion is weak as it does not have back up data to for support.
Lastly, it outweighs the positive results of administering the inoculations by a paltry amount of negative results which cannot represent whole sample.
As a whole, this argument does not sound convincing and requires various evidences from different environmental, social, profound research based and demographical contexts to build up the conclusion that will strengthen the argument.
- “The perceived greatness of any political leader has more to do with the challenges faced by that leader than with any of his or her inherent skills and abilities.” 50
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 54
- 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 inoculation, we cannot permit 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 233, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ry person who will be administered with this inoculations will be dead. It should ex...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'for example', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.235616438356 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.186301369863 0.15541462614 120% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0684931506849 0.0836205057962 82% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0356164383562 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0164383561644 0.0272364105082 60% => OK
Prepositions: 0.123287671233 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0547945205479 0.0416121511921 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.04451670465 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0191780821918 0.026700313972 72% => OK
Particles: 0.00547945205479 0.001811407834 302% => OK
Determiners: 0.150684931507 0.113004496875 133% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0383561643836 0.0255425247493 150% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.027397260274 0.0127820249294 214% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2084.0 2731.13054187 76% => OK
No of words: 338.0 446.07635468 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.16568047337 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.360946745562 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275147928994 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.215976331361 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.150887573964 0.135150697306 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04451670465 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 207.018472906 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.461538461538 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 46.7055490281 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 22.5333333333 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.917020763 57.7814097925 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.933333333 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5333333333 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.733333333333 0.724660767414 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 50.0481262327 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.73563218391 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.49418353116 0.441005458295 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0968224728871 0.135418324435 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0328325472176 0.0829849096947 40% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.614730421217 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.217505030975 0.147661913831 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.185152913615 0.193483328276 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.161529584956 0.0970749176394 166% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.253199618206 0.42659136922 59% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.128741253647 0.0774707102158 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285452996963 0.312017818177 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.194783681022 0.0698173142475 279% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.