"Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected.However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations,we cannot perm

The argument, that inoculations against the cow flu can have a contrary effect, seems disputable at first glance. Obviously, the conclusion relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence and on terms that lack definition.

In the first sentence, the author assumes that vaccination must be administrated in all suspicious and detected territories. Obviously, the prevention of disease is much more favourable for population than try to cure of the illness later. There are different kinds of avoiding sickness, but considerably making the inoculations is mostly effectiveness, but the author does not provide us with the data, calculations or personal estimations of this 'many lives', that might be saved. How many people can be administrated with the inoculations among the all defined territory? Who will be provided first of all with the vaccination: children or adults? Are there any differences in the structure of medicaments for different ages?

In the second part of the memo, the argument implies on that vaccinations can not be held when the disease exists, because it can entail lots of death, but there is no evidence of the main reason that will held such negative results. Will it be death as the result of personal allergies on vaccination? Will it be as the consequences of providing the inoculations after the term of avoidance the disease?

The author's argument would be strengthened considerably if the author provided evidence of a direct relationship between the prevention of the disease and its consequences.

Summarizing, to support the conclusion of the memo, the author should provide more data information and define exactly the scope of the problem clearly.