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 that although many lives may be saved because of an inoculation for cow flu, they cannot give it due to a small chance of death is far too broad. To strengthen this argument, it needs evidence supporting the claim it presents. The argument, as it stands, has no evidence and, therefore, no validity.
The first question that arises when reading the argument is how small is the possibility of death associated with the inoculation? If it truly is a small chance, then it is an invalid reason to not allow the inoculation. As cliche as it sounds, the odds of the many outweigh the odds of the few. As an example, people die every year from the flu shot, but it is still administered to millions annually. This is because of how inoculations work. They put a small amount of the virus into a person`s system to allow their immune system to fight it off. If this inoculation was given in a region where cow flu is prevalent, it would most likely save the lives of many more people than the couple who risk dying from it. In addition, are those who die actually dying from the inoculation?
The presented argument is heavily lacking in evidence to support its claim. In addition to just how small the risk of death is, it fails to account for who exactly has died from its use. These people could be children who have under developed immune systems or the elderly with prior conditions or habits that have adverse effects when combined with the inoculation. If the people administering the inoculation are made aware of the risks involved with it and the people who will potentially die from it, they will ensure that very few, if any, people with theses issues are knowingly given the inoculation. However, the argument does not specify this and is, therefore, incomplete.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly in regards to an argument such as this, is the question of how many people will be saved from the inoculation. The argument does not specify if the administration of the inoculation will save hundreds, thousands, or tens of people. It just says "many lives might be saved." Well might is not a synonym for definitely so the argument needs a reason as to why the inoculation would work and just how many people may be saved by its use.
To summarize, the argument is severely lacking in evidence. Apart from the idea of a few people potentially dying so that countless may live being a bit flawed, it lacks the evidence to support either for or against its claims. Evidence that the small plausibility of death is actually quite large for certain people who are prevalent in the regions where cow flu is most common would strengthen the argument. However, evidence on how the inoculation has been proven effective and that a minuscule number of people risk death would weaken the argument.
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist."Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire villag 55
- All parents should be required to volunteer time to their children's schools.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing a 50
- A nation should require all students to study a shared national curriculum. 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 83
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten-year budget for the city of Calatrava."The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only one-half that of five years ago. Thus the number of students en 46
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 24 15
No. of Words: 493 350
No. of Characters: 2261 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.712 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.586 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.538 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.542 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.115 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 39, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
... Finally, and perhaps most importantly in regards to an argument such as this, is the questi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, therefore, well, apart from, as to, in addition, such as
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 : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2345.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.75659229209 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6843709469 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438133874239 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 747.0 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.6404246628 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.956521739 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4347826087 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.30434782609 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.268613155753 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.078851102083 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0615390032944 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166541841679 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0425180847942 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.37 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.