Innoculation
In this passage, the author wants to convince us that the potential benefits of routine innoculation against cow flu does not outweigh the potential negative effects of the vaccine, and that we should therefore not practice routine innoculation against cow flu. However, the author's argument is rushed and presents with several flaws in reasoning which prevent us from effectively weighing risk and benefits. The author needs to answer more questions before he can make a recommendation on which procedure to follow.
First, he claims that innoculations in areas where the disease is detected might be life-saving. However, he does not provide us with a description of the consequences of cow flu. Is it an illness that appears suddenly and has immediate severe consequences that lead to a rapid death? If so, it would make sense to prevent the disease from occurring entirely. If cow flu causes symptoms that are duller and take a while to appear, the development of a curative product might be more beneficial. The author needs to provide us with more information about the disease before claiming the potential benefits of an innoculation procedure against it.
Additionally, the concept of inoculation in an area where the disease has already been detected seems moot. If the disease is already there, the people receiving the vaccine may already be suffering from the disease and would therefore not benefit from the innoculation procedure. The author should explain his reasoning behind the qualification of "areas where the disease is detected". It might make more sense to recommend people get vaccinated in an area where a case of cow flu was documented less than a certain amount of years ago. The author needs to provide us with more evidence for why he thinks his first strategy could be beneficial.
Moreover, the author needs to provide us with more information about the small possibility of death because of the innoculation. He does not give us any statistics, which prevents us from judging the likelihood of this possibility. Most medications list death as a potential side effect, so without more data we do not know whether or not inoculations are dangerously deadly.
While the author's argument of the possibility of dying from an innoculation procedure is daunting, he needs to provide us with more information about both the potential benefits of the vaccine and how it would be administered and the potential harmful effects of this procedure. Instead he makes a very drastic claim that allows no room for discussion. If the vaccine is dangerous for people with a specific set of characteristics, the author could recommend avoiding the innoculation procedure. Similarly, if a group is at high risk for cow flu, the author might recommend they do undergo the vaccination procedure. Without nuances and data, this author's recommendation seems too drastic to be taken seriously.
- Studying foodways – What foods people eat and how they produce, acquire, prepare and consume them – is the best way to gain deep understanding of a culture. 50
- Fossil evidence indicates that the blompus-an extremely large, carnivorous land mammal-inhabited the continent of Pentagoria for tens of thousands of years until its sudden decline and ultimate extinction about twelve thousand years ago. Scientists have d 66
- Innoculation 66
- Companies 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 276, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...oculation against cow flu. However, the authors argument is rushed and presents with se...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 325, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ct, so without more data we do not know whether or not inoculations are dangerously deadly. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 11, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s are dangerously deadly. While the authors argument of the possibility of dying fr...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 280, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...tial harmful effects of this procedure. Instead he makes a very drastic claim that allo...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2454.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19915254237 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02453341123 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440677966102 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 705.55239521 111% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7539844953 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.545454545 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4545454545 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.142721343434 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488967045006 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0820648523914 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0966327020743 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581400970115 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.