The following appeared in a memo from a staff member of a local health care clinic:
“Many lives might be saved if inoculations agains 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 can not permit inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered.”
Consider how logical you find this argument. In your essay, be sure to discuss the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterpoints might weaken the conclusion. You may also discuss what types of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
To make it easier, i suggest reader to read a while tips to make good writing in my previous article. Now, let get started
The argument above states that inoculations against cow flu could be useful in combating the desease, but, due to the risk of death from the inoculations themselves, the vaccines should not be widely administered (paraphrasing the information). This argument relies on several unsupported assumptions and therefore fails to be persuasive (opinion).
The argument against widespread inoculations is rooted in the assumption that the risk of death from the inoculations is greater than the risk of death from cow flu. However, the author provides no evidence to support this key assumption. Without specific statistic regarding the death rates from inoculations and cow flu, we can not assume that one outweighs the other: cow flu and the inoculations may be equally risky, or cow flu may in fact be riskier than the inoculations. In addition, the language of the argument appears to contradict its primary assumption. The author states that “many lives” could be saved by inoculations, but there is a small possibility of death from the inoculations. There terms suggest that the risk from cow flu is greater that inoculations should not be routinely administered.
Additionally, the author takes an all or nothing position, suggesting that inoculation must be widely administered or not administered at all. This position ignores the possibility of variation in rates of infection and effect of the inoculation in different environments. The vaccine may pose a serious risk to those relatively unaffected by cow flu, while posing little risk to those most impacted by cow flu. In this case, vaccines administered to select portion of the population might save the most lives while putting the fewest lives in danger.
To make this argument persuasive, the author needs to present spesific evidence to support the argument’s assumptions. For instance, details regarding the number of deaths caused by cow flu and the vaccine would clarify the relative risks of the flu and the inoculations, allowing an accurate evaluation of the merits and risks of the vaccine. Also, a less extreme stance on inoculations-one that allowed for selective administration of the inoculations based upon an area’s risk for the desease-would provide a more realistic solution to the challenge of balancing the dangers of cow flu and inoculations. Without such changes, the conclusion of this argument remains unconvincing.
Oke, that is all for today guys. Tomorrow morning, i will take GMAT Exam. This structure really helps me to upgrade my writing skill.