The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
"In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the presented memo, the director recommends that the hospital group collectively start supplying UltraClean as it demonstrated in a few studies more significant effects than the existing hand soaps. At first glance, this recommendation appears logical and the director should be commended for his or her efforts to prevent serious infections. However, presented this way, the argument cannot be fully supported as it rests upon a few unwarranted assumptions. If the manager addressed these assumptions and adjusted the argument in consideration of the following points, he or she would be able to make an even more compelling case for this recommendation.
One of the biggest shortcomings of this argument involves the cited laboratory study to show the superior effectiveness of UltraClean. Although the inclusion of this type of information is recommended, this study needs to be viewed caution and would benefit from more detailed information. For instance, the proven effectiveness may be because the solution of UltraClean used in the study was concentrated. Possibly, it reduced the amount of bacteria by 40% only because of this particular dense form instead of the power of the product itself. Furthermore, critical readers can call into question the methodology of this study as the memo does not present any information regarding how the sample was collected, whether the sample size is representative of the population, or whether the control and treatment groups had the same level of bacteria prior to the study. In order to demonstrate the reliability of the study as a means to illustrate the effectiveness of UltraClean, it would be advisable for the director to look into these aspects and provide relevant information.
Another area of concern in the director’s argument is the assumption that fewer reports in the subsequent test indicate successful reduction of bacteria by UltraClean. The director’s attempt to establish this implied causal relationship merits a careful analysis as there are many possibilities that account for the fact that there were fewer reports in Workby. To illustrate, it is possible that Workby already had a higher level of hygiene than the other hospitals, suggesting that it was not UltraClean that contributed to the implied reduction of bacteria. Another caveat is that the presence itself of the new product as a method to enhance the hospital’s hygiene may have altered patients’ awareness and caused them to wash their hands more frequently. In this case, again, the apparent reduction in bacteria would not be due to UltraClean. Consequently, had the director provided more information in a way that rules out these possibilities, he or she would been able to address these potential concerns and prove the causal relationship to corroborate the argument.
Finally, building on the aforementioned questionable points, the director proceeds to propose installing UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout the entire hospital group. The director makes this far-fetched assertion based on the assumption that all hand-washing stations at the other hospitals have the same type(s) of bacteria that UltraClean could ostensibly kill. Objections could be raised on the ground that, because some types of bacteria are resistant to certain chemicals, UltraClean could turn out to be ineffective outside of the location in which the product was tested. If the director wishes to strengthen the validity of this proposal, he or she would need to show that all hand-washing stations at the other hospitals are rife with the identical type(s) of bacteria that UltraClean is proven to be effective for.
In summary, while the director’s argument is not entirely invalid, the information included in the memo is not sufficient to support the recommendation to replace the current hand soaps with UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospital group. It could be considerably strengthened if the director provided all the relevant information mentioned above and elaborated on it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 986, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...ut these possibilities, he or she would been able to address these potential concern...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'for instance', 'in summary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.244635193133 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.145922746781 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0872675250358 0.0836205057962 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.035765379113 0.0520304965353 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0286123032904 0.0272364105082 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.138769670959 0.125424944231 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0300429184549 0.0416121511921 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.24485786268 2.79052419416 116% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0343347639485 0.026700313972 129% => OK
Particles: 0.00143061516452 0.001811407834 79% => OK
Determiners: 0.141630901288 0.113004496875 125% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0214592274678 0.0255425247493 84% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0071530758226 0.0127820249294 56% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4078.0 2731.13054187 149% => OK
No of words: 631.0 446.07635468 141% => OK
Chars per words: 6.46275752773 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01195704033 4.57801047555 109% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.400950871632 0.378187486979 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.358161648177 0.287650121315 125% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.272583201268 0.208842608468 131% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.18383518225 0.135150697306 136% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24485786268 2.79052419416 116% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 207.018472906 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472266244057 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 58.5725055899 52.1807786196 112% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 28.6818181818 23.2022227129 124% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7572789613 57.7814097925 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 185.363636364 141.986410481 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6818181818 23.2022227129 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 64.4979829996 51.9672348444 124% => OK
Elegance: 1.96598639456 1.8405768891 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.505182309505 0.441005458295 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.156236117784 0.135418324435 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0729195112881 0.0829849096947 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.653624997946 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.106418290932 0.147661913831 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.245142041997 0.193483328276 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.1049517731 0.0970749176394 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.545564172134 0.42659136922 128% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0226585379216 0.0774707102158 29% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.362509052427 0.312017818177 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0742994571272 0.0698173142475 106% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.