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 routinel

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing 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 routinel

  • Timothy565
    University: National Taiwan University
    Nationality: China
    October 11, 2020 at 6:08 pm

    The conclusion drawn by the original argument is way too absolute and simplistic. There are many possible outcomes of permitting such inoculations. To decide whether to permit inoculations against cow flu, only the fact that a small possibility of dying from the inoculations exists is insufficient. We still need to know how many portions of people survive from getting such inoculations, and we also need to make a comparison between permitting and not permitting such inoculations to see whether we can be satisfied by the potential positive result of permitting and whether we can put up with the potential negative positive result of doing the same thing.

    Specifically speaking, if it is the case that although there is a small possibility that a person will die from such inoculations, such possibility is just so small as to be negligible, obviously, we can accept the risk of such inoculations. To be sure, only the acceptability of the risk of inoculations is also not sufficient to help us reach the conclusion that permitting is a good choice. To observe the improvement of mortal rate is also crucial. If after inoculations there is no or few improvement of mortal rate, most of us are reasonably reluctant to choose to permit. This is because of the existence of a uniformly accepted conservative principle which is, if no good is done after a change, we are reasonable to reject any such change. Of course it is. Why should we waste time and energy to make any change if nothing better is acquired? But in turn, if after inoculations there is good improvement of mortal rate, we should certainly embrace such permitting decision. In addition, what if such small possibility is not so small as to be negligible? For example, let us suppose that the possibility of dying from inoculation is 5%. Certainly, the possibility is small, at least in some sense. But if the population of the corresponding patients is sufficiently large, the possibility of 5% will no longer be negligible. Then what should we do under this circumstance? Well, we cannot help but weigh advantages and disadvantages of permitting inoculations against cow flu to be routinely administered. We probably need to quantify advantages and disadvantages in number under some criterion. Take advantages as positive, and disadvantages as negative. And then we add the positive result (the pleasant feeling of seeing some degree of improvement of mortal rate) and the negative one (the unpalatable feeling of seeing a large number of people dying from such inoculations). If we get a positive addition, we should choose to permit. Otherwise, we should not.

     

    Timothy565
    University: National Taiwan University
    Nationality: China
    October 11, 2020 at 6:10 pm

    The title is unfinished. The last several words are “routinely administered”

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    October 15, 2020 at 2:26 pm

    Invalid. Please revise your previous essay before submitting another.

Tagged: