ROutinely taking a drug
The author argues against administering Inoculation to people infected with cow flue. the writers position is based on the assumption that the drug is harmful when administered routinely. While it is true that any medication carries some degree of risk, the claim that inoculation cannot be administered due to safe is based of inadequate evidence and illogical reasoning
Firstly, the authors claims that one dose is less harmful than routine usage is based on some unproven assumption. The effects of drugs are dependent on many factors such as health history of the particular person, age , allergies and strength immune system. Assuming that the drug will react the same way to every person will be ignoring all the factors that may influence how people react to drugs.Furthermore, the author does not provide evidence that one dose is safe . To put the argument on a more sound footing, the author needs to demonstrate through empirical evidence that the drug inoculation is harmful to people regardless of their health, strength of immune system.the author also needs to provide evidence that one does is safe and routine intake isn't safe.
secondly, the argument rests of the idea that it originated in the area where it was detected. Diseases are caused by microorganisms that need a host to transfer from place to place. Humans are one of the main hosts of these microorganisms. Humans are very mobile in nature, the person in which the disease was detected moved to a new area far from where he contracted the disease. To validate the argument, the author needs to prove that the disease originated in the town in which it was detected.
thirdly, the authors claim that the drug needs to be routinely administered is based on the assumption that one dose is not sufficient. due to differences in immune system strength, people are affected differently by drugs. Certain people require only one dose to effectively recover from illnesses, while people with weaker immune system may need to routinely take drugs. The assumption by the author assumes that every people has the same strength of immune system. To substantiate their claims, the author needs to provide evidence that no person has the ability to recover from cow flue with only just one dose
In conclusion, the author's argument against routine administration of inoculation lacks sufficient evidence and logical reasoning. The author should conduct further research, provide evidence-based data, and address potential counterarguments to substantiate their claims. Without such evidence, the argument remains unconvincing and unsupported.
| 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 |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 88, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ation to people infected with cow flue. the writers position is based on the assump...
^^^
Line 1, column 152, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...based on the assumption that the drug is harmful when administered routinely. Whi...
^^
Line 3, column 63, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...laims that one dose is less harmful than routine usage is based on some unproven ...
^^
Line 3, column 220, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...th history of the particular person, age , allergies and strength immune system. A...
^^
Line 3, column 402, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Furthermore
...may influence how people react to drugs.Furthermore, the author does not provide evidence t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 473, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...t provide evidence that one dose is safe . To put the argument on a more sound foo...
^^
Line 3, column 552, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...footing, the author needs to demonstrate through empirical evidence that the drug...
^^
Line 3, column 765, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...hat one does is safe and routine intake isnt safe. secondly, the argument rests o...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
...s safe and routine intake isnt safe. secondly, the argument rests of the idea that it...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thirdly
...n the town in which it was detected. thirdly, the authors claim that the drug needs ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 137, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Due
...mption that one dose is not sufficient. due to differences in immune system strengt...
^^^
Line 7, column 428, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by the author assumes that every people has the same strength of immune system. ...
^^
Line 10, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y just one dose In conclusion, the authors argument against routine administration...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, while, in conclusion, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2205.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27511961722 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91424194645 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464114832536 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.6580391557 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2222222222 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.83333333333 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 13.0 5.25449101796 247% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152513974541 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0459057643227 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614673077726 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0769215701086 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0575136356908 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.