Gre Practice Essay-Argument
Discuss how well reasoned you find each of the following arguments:
Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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.
NOTES
Many lives might be saved-routine inoculations people could die from inoculation so inoculations FORBIDDEN routinely
Inoculations saving people: reasonable prohibition because of possible death infringes upon the good of many: lacks strength/somewhat unreasonable
The assertion that agencies should prohibit routine inoculations because of a small possibility of death is flawed. Routine inoculations have saved millions of lives. For example, traditional flu shots have protected many individuals from contracting influenza. However, in addition to saving many thousands from the virus, some individuals contracted the flu from the inoculation. On a societal scale, the overall benefit far outweighs the potential for harm. Thus, governments allow flu shots to continue. Jimilarly, cow flu inoculations can protect vast numbers of individuals. Because of a small possibility that a person will die, health providers can issue a warning rather than prohibit inoculations.
Peanut allergies affect a relatively small percentage of the overall US population. However prohibiting or banning peanuts outright would be ridiculous. As a compromise, many schools and some public venues announce they have become "peanut-free zones." Furthermore, many food manufacturers describe the facilities where their products were made as including peanuts or not. Thus, manufacturers warn consumers rather than stop using peanuts.
Finally, this passage did not discuss whether or not individuals could inoculate themselves irregularly. The passage's author did not state the definition of "routine" in
Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which 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.
NOTES
Many lives might be saved-routine inoculations people could die from inoculation so inoculations FORBIDDEN routinely
Inoculations saving people: reasonable prohibition because of possible death infringes upon the good of many: lacks strength/somewhat unreasonable
The assertion that agencies should prohibit routine inoculations because of a small possibility of death is flawed. Routine inoculations have saved millions of lives. For example, traditional flu shots have protected many individuals from contracting influenza. However, in addition to saving many thousands from the virus, some individuals contracted the flu from the inoculation. On a societal scale, the overall benefit far outweighs the potential for harm. Thus, governments allow flu shots to continue. Jimilarly, cow flu inoculations can protect vast numbers of individuals. Because of a small possibility that a person will die, health providers can issue a warning rather than prohibit inoculations.
Peanut allergies affect a relatively small percentage of the overall US population. However prohibiting or banning peanuts outright would be ridiculous. As a compromise, many schools and some public venues announce they have become "peanut-free zones." Furthermore, many food manufacturers describe the facilities where their products were made as including peanuts or not. Thus, manufacturers warn consumers rather than stop using peanuts.
Finally, this passage did not discuss whether or not individuals could inoculate themselves irregularly. The passage's author did not state the definition of "routine" in