Every year many people die from the cow flupidemic yet very little action is taken. One method that may save lives is the use of inoculations. However, the use of inoculations costs the state much more and also has a risk of death. The negative factors outweigh the small benefit of using inoculations.
Moreover, the cow flu is present in rural areas where individuals are more susceptible. In these areas the local health care clinic should become proactive and educate individuals in those environments to be cautious. The use of inoculations will not be enough to tackle this problem. First of all, there is a risk of death with the injection depending on the person. The strong injection has many side effects such as fast heart beat, fatigue and of course death.
Furthermore, there are other ways to save lives other than using injections. The state should have routine screenings. The farms should be checked for bacteria and various other factors promoting the flu to be present. With various methods the disease can diminish and save lives.
The argument above presents a method to save lives, however, the use of inoculations may also increase the chance of death amongst individuals. However, there is not enough information or statistic to prove whether the injections cause deaths. 1st paragraph:
The argument presents a negative approach for the use of inoculations, because, there is a greater risk of death. However, there is no evidence or facts present to show the injections cause these deaths. The author doesn’t provide any health facts or studies to support their argument. 2nd paragraph:
Furthermore, the author either believes there should inoculations or none at all. The author doesn’t present alternatives to take a better approach. The approach is vague and doesn’t go into details whether the vaccines may be only used on certain individuals. 3nd
In order to make this argument persuasive: present stats and studies...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document