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 argument state that many lives can be saved if we routinely administer and vaccinate areas that are affected with cow flu. It further concludes that such an inoculation program is not allowable considering that a small proportion of the vaccinated persons are prone to death. The conclusion is based upon a number of unwarranted assumptions and would require further evidence to evaluate it.
Firstly, the argument states that many lives 'might' be saved through vaccination of people affected with cow-flu. The usage of the word 'might' raises questions on the credibility of the vaccination scheme against cow flu. It raises several doubts on whether the vaccination was actually tested properly and reaped benefits in preventing the occurrence of cow flu among individuals. It also makes us think if this vaccination program is a case of 'trial-and-error' where it has cured certain individuals diagnosed with cow-flu whereas did not make others immune to the flu.
Secondly, an inoculation program is effective only when it is implemented on the entire population of the state or the country. The primary aim of vaccination is to prevent cow flu from spreading and affecting other individuals. The approach of inoculating and routinely administering only selected areas that have people diagnosed with cow flu and neglecting other areas looks flawed and requires further evidence to understand this situation.
Thirdly, the conclusion that inoculations should be prohibited considering the small proportion of deaths that might occur due to vaccination against cow flu is half baked. While there can be lot of questions regarding the launch of an inoculation program that is lethal to the public, there are other sides of this issue that needs to be addressed as well. The data regarding the number of deaths caused by cow-flu and the number of deaths that occur after inoculation should be analyzed. If the number of deaths that occur after vaccination is very minimal in comparison to the number that would have occurred before it, it would be reasonable enough to permit inoculation against cow flu stating the statistics of death incidents.
Furthermore, it also puts the government at stake as the kith and kin of an individual vaccinated against cow-flu can argue against the government stating that the death was a result of the state-sponsored inoculation program. It will also stir human-rights associations to question the government to launch a vaccination program that might be lethal to the general-public. They will argue that the life of every single individual is important and even a single life that is lost due to the vaccination program launched by the government is a grave sin.
Thus, the argument raises a barrage of questions and we cannot come to a single conclusion without evidences and data about the above-mentioned aspects. In addition, several consequences have to be analyzed before implementing this inoculation program as it is something that is concerned with the lives of the people.
- 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. 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 permi 69
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 486 350
No. of Characters: 2504 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.695 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.152 4.6
Word Length SD: 3 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.73 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.614 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, well, whereas, while, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2551.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24897119342 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03410324243 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43621399177 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 808.2 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.9494139966 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.263157895 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5789473684 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.21052631579 5.70786347227 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269430341673 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0985321443886 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0743872160202 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149794102152 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04488673819 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.