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 given argument states that due to a slight possibility of fatalities linked with the cow flu inoculations, the very idea of providing the inoculation cannot be permited. But before this argument is taken into effect, there needs to be specific evidence provided related to multiple open questions, without which this argument cannot be evaluated thoroughly.
Firstly, important statistics are needed to understand the cow flu disease and its proliferation. It is just mentioned that many lives might be saved and there is a small chance of death. But these terms are vauge and do not help in analyzing the problem at hand. Evidence for number of people infected with the cow flu, the probability of the fatality, the detailed study of how this probability was calculated is pivotal in evaluating the argument. It might be possible that the potential beneficiaries of the inoculation is very large, but the chance of fatality is infinitismally small. If that is the case, the benefit achieved by taking the prescribed vaccine outweighs its demerits and the idea of it being regularly administered to the people should be taken forward.
Secondly, there is not evidence provided for the reasons why the mentioned deaths might occour. There is an assumption made that there is a direct corelation between the vaccine and its patient's death. But this might not be the case in relaity. It might be possible that the fatalities can be caused due to some other reason. Maybe the patient taking the inoculation might have some othe disease or ailments and this is creating a detrimental compounding effect on his or her health. Further, this slight possiblity evaluated might just be an outlier or error in calculation. Hence, without detailed, specfic evidence of the study executed from which this small chance of death was engendered, the argument does not hold water.
Lastly, it is also mentioned that there is no permit given to provide the cow flu inoculations routinely, but there is no specific mention of this routine. It may be possible that this routine is the main cause of all the problems. For example, the ideal routine or schedule for taking the vaccine might be say 3 months, but this is not being effected in reality. It might be possible that the small fraction of deaths might have happened if the schedule at which the inoculation was meant to be administered, was not as per defined standards. If true, this particular case would just serve as an outlier or anomaly in the study and can be erradicated with further analysis and deliberation.
Therefore in conclusion, there is a major lack of evidence provided in the prompt, which is paramount in evaluating the argument and without which the argument as it stands appears weak.
| 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 |
- 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 discuss 66
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 58
- 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 what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the 50
- The diagram below shows how electricity is generated in a hydroelectric power station Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The primary goal of education is to get a job 62
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2244 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.878 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.716 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.905 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.768 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.045 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...h further analysis and deliberation. Therefore in conclusion, there is a major lack of...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 41.0 19.6327345309 209% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2301.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00217391304 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80702181245 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454347826087 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 735.3 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3397519777 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.571428571 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9047619048 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2380952381 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248336059136 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0868282967661 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613366425508 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143256875475 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0838507406215 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.