Inoculation Argument Analysis

The claim that is introduced needs more evidence and numbers to back it up. As the argument is currently presented, it dismantles itself. It states that "many lives may be saved" if individuals were inoculated against the disease but that there is only a "small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations." A person viewing this with a critical eye, can immediately see that in this language, the amounts of lives saved by this inoculation will far outnumber the potential deaths. From a humanitarian viewpoint, the result with less deaths should be the route taken. For this argument to be successful, it needs copious amounts of data to back it up. Looking at the first section of the argument, we need many questions answered to be sufficiently informed on the issue. What is the population of the affected area? How many of these individuals contract cow flu annually? Of those afflicted, how many die as a result?

Analyzing the second clause, about the inoculation, there are more questions to be addressed. Of individuals inoculated, how many still contract the disease? What is the exact percent chance an individual will die from the inoculation? Where did that percentage originate? Is the chance of death from
To strengthen this statement, the data would need to show that the risk does not outweigh the benefit. Specifically, the questions about the chance of death from inoculation would need to show that the amount of deaths would be the same, if not higher than deaths from the flu. In addition, the data would need to show that there is no way to screen patients ahead of time to reduce the chances of accidental death. To properly sell this argument, they would need to utilize pathos, tugging at the heart strings of the reader with the data. They would need to spin the idea that to force inoculations on an area would be to sentence innocent lives to