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.
While it may be true that there is a risk of fatality due to the administration of the cow flu vaccine, the author does not make a pellucid case to prevent the administration of the inoculation. The author bases the argument on the risk that the inoculation may prove to be fatal and while this may be true, the argument is rife with holes and unstated assumptions which need to be evaluated before we can reach the given conclusion.
The paragraph states that there is a small possibility of death as a result of the inoculations. Nowhere is it mentioned what this small possibility is. Was it 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100, because if it is the latter then the possibility is too small to overlook the obvious benefits to the other 99 people. The paragraph also fails to elucidate from where did they get the 'small possibility'. No source or experiment has been mentioned as as to provide evidence for the above statement. While it is possible that it may be true, we cannot affirmatively come to the conclusion without any sources.
The paragraph talks about routine inoculations in the cow-flu affected regions yet fails to mention as to why the regions are routinely affected by the flu. It is likely that the authorities are just treating the symptoms and not the cause. If the authorities were to look at the cause of the flu and try to eradicate it, it would render the need for the inoculation moot. The paragraph talks about the 'routine inoculation'. While it is possible that routine inoculation may be required, it is not mentioned as to how routinely it is required and whether the authorities are aware of this or not. It is possible that the authorities are inoculating the people much more frequently and thus reducing the time required to become immune against the disease. We just do not know.
The paragraph mentions that there is a small possibility of death due to the inoculations but nowhere is it mentioned that the cause of death were the inoculations themselves. It is likely that the subjects under consideration died due to some other complication but their death was misattributed to the flu inoculations. It is also likely that the person who was given the inoculation was suffering from something else other than cow flu and after the administration of the cow flu vaccine, it rendered them further weak and led to the person's death. It is a nebulous statement and we have no way of knowing the validity of the claims.
Based on the examination of the above factors, it is clear that the paragraph does not make a clear case for their conclusion. While it is possible that the situations mentioned in the context were true, the lack of evidence does not support this and thus we cannot come to the given conclusion. It is unlikely that the author can convince anyone to follow the given conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-09 | Swetha Kulkarni | 33 | view |
| 2019-10-15 | Vaikunth | 50 | view |
| 2019-10-15 | Vaikunth | 50 | view |
| 2019-09-16 | vijaykaushik132 | 58 | view |
| 2019-09-16 | vijaykaushik132 | 50 | view |
- 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 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 50
- 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. 66
- 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. 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 30
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 437, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: as
...source or experiment has been mentioned as as to provide evidence for the above state...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 538, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...ndered them further weak and led to the persons death. It is a nebulous statement and w...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 553, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ther weak and led to the persons death. It is a nebulous statement and we have no ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, may, so, then, thus, while, as to, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.5258426966 200% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 33.0505617978 148% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2347.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 499.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70340681363 5.05705443957 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86738044126 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.402805611222 0.4932671777 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 765.9 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.38483146067 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8432724183 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.681818182 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6818181818 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.04545454545 5.21951772744 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248889242231 0.243740707755 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0721436949613 0.0831039109588 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0470720491984 0.0758088955206 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.13223395133 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505278019844 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.1392134831 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.28 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.23 8.38706741573 86% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 100.480337079 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.