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.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument stem says that routinely administered vaccination against cow flu will help lives of many people in the areas where the disease is detected. However, it rejects the idea of routine administration by citing a small possibility of death due to this vaccination. In my humble opinion, there are some flaws in the reasoning that need to be addressed. We need to answer some critical questions before deciding about routine administration of the vaccination.
First, what is the possibility that the people with disease will die if not vaccinated routinely?
If this probability is higher than the possibility of death from vaccination, then it is better to vaccinate than to be left without it. But, if that probability is less, this step should not be taken. Another way should be found out to solve this issue. In no case, should the problem be left unsolved.
Second, other than the death possibility, is there any other reason that precludes the routine administration?
If yes, then it makes the case of not vaccinating regularly even stronger. These factors might be lack of infrastructure, low budget allocation, etc. But if not, then the task may be undertaken with explicit notice to vaccination seekers that there is some chance of things to go wrong.
Third, can there be an alternate solution to vaccination?
If yes, that would obviate the use of vaccination on routine basis. This could be done if the milieu of the area where the disease is detected is drastically improved. The affected people are shifted to healthier place till then, and are put under care. In medical sense, they can be treated with generic medicine and vaccination on alternate basis.
Fourth, is anything being done to maintain the sanguinity of the people affected?
This is a critical point to consider. If people are not kept hopeful, it may create anarchy. The authority now will have to deal with the vaccination improvement as well as the problems created by such people . Health promotion programs, personal meeting with such people, art of living workshops, etc should be provided to these people for free. This may help them in the time of crisis.
Steps need to be taken in improving the quality of vaccination in order to make it not fatal. If concrete research work is being going on in finding a solution, and if progress is evident, then we may be able to conduct routine administrations in hope that it would be a short term procedure. So, in my opinion, these and some other questions need to handled first before reaching a conclusion.go down, a person not from the company but from outside, needs to be assigned the job of problem solution. This would save time and energy of employees as well as get the problem solved.
Although, it may be true that hiring an outside professional may be heavy on the company's budget. Also, that professional will need enough time to gauge the company's working, employee morale, etc. This option might take some time and money. Nevertheless, the benefits of the option seem to outweigh the costs.
- 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
- 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.Write a response in which you discu 50
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: 30 15
No. of Words: 516 350
No. of Characters: 2459 1500
No. of Different Words: 248 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.766 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.766 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.713 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.722 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.235 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 208, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...l as the problems created by such people . Health promotion programs, personal mee...
^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s as well as get the problem solved. Although, it may be true that hiring an outside ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, third, well, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2554.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 516.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9496124031 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76609204519 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81500121207 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505813953488 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 795.6 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.6942558715 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.8125 119.503703932 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.125 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3125 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 11.0 5.15768463074 213% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236944688496 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05966873433 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0746710852374 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100570160919 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0817747244357 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.3799401198 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.86 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.