In a laboratory study of two different industrial cleansers, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Furthermore, a study showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with cleanAll used far fewer sick leaves than employees working in the buildings cleaned with the other cleaners. Therefore, to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as their industrial cleaners.
Write the 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 implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the argument, the author concludes that the Clean All must be used as the industrial cleanser. In order to prove his point, he produces two evidences. First, that in a laboratory study, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Second, a study that showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick leaves than the employees working in buildings cleaned with other cleanser.The argument of the author is based on various unwarranted assumptions like laboratory study gives a perfect picture of how the cleaners work in the real life applications, the employees working in the two buildings observed for the study are have same working conditions and more like these. These assumptions if not warranted can make the argument spurious.
Firstly, in the study of the two buildings in which one cleaned with CleanAll witnessed fewer sick leaves by the employees, the author assumes that the kind of work and working conditions of the employees in both these places is similar. It is quite possible that one building might be dealing with chemicals or furnances that would be causing the sickness. It is also possible that the employees in the building cleaned with other cleaners do not get much of holidays, or might have more working hours that would be causing the sick leaves. Without negating all these plausible causes that could also lead to higher sick leaves, we cannot the entire credit to the cleanAll only. If this assumption of the author proves false, the argument would become weak. Therefore, the author must bring forth the clarification that these two buildings are indeed similar in all aspects to lend credibility to the evidence.
Also, while citing the study of how CleanAll is more effective than other best cleaner in the laboratory, author assumes that the laboratory results are a good measure of how these cleaners would perform in the real life situations. While it is quite possible that though the CleanAll is some percent better in cleansing than the other cleanser, they both are goog enough for the requirements in the industry cleaning. There can also be a possibiliy that both of these cleaners do not meet the requirement of the industrail application they have to be used. Therefore, by only showing than CleanAll is better than the other do not justify that CleanAll serves its purpose well. Hence, the author must produce evidences to prove that CleanAll is effective at the places that it will be actually put to use i.e. the industry.
Furthermore, the author assumes that scince the CleanAll is better than the second cleaner tested in the laboratory, it is the best. It is quite possible that there is some other cleaner that is much better than these two cleaners tested in the laboratory.Therefore, an exhaustive report that compares effectiveness of all cleaners in the market must be submitted by the author to make the argument strong. If this assumption fails, the argument would be damaged.
In sum, there are numerous unstated assumptions employed by the author to make the argument. If these assumptions are not warranted they can seriously undermine the conclusion. To prevent the jeopardy that these assumptions can bring forth, the author must produce clear evidences and bolster the assumptions made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 470, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...n buildings cleaned with other cleanser.The argument of the author is based on vari...
^^^
Line 1, column 713, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...wo buildings observed for the study are have same working conditions and more like t...
^^^^
Line 7, column 257, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Therefore
...e two cleaners tested in the laboratory.Therefore, an exhaustive report that compares eff...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 94, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...yed by the author to make the argument. If these assumptions are not warranted the...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'second', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'kind of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.216887417219 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.165562913907 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0927152317881 0.0836205057962 111% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0546357615894 0.0520304965353 105% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0215231788079 0.0272364105082 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132450331126 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.044701986755 0.0416121511921 107% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6998988459 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0198675496689 0.026700313972 74% => OK
Particles: 0.00165562913907 0.001811407834 91% => OK
Determiners: 0.14238410596 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0314569536424 0.0255425247493 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0149006622517 0.0127820249294 117% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3355.0 2731.13054187 123% => OK
No of words: 555.0 446.07635468 124% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04504504505 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.36036036036 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275675675676 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.203603603604 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.12972972973 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6998988459 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 207.018472906 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.401801801802 0.469332199767 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.8804982902 52.1807786196 90% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 24.1304347826 23.2022227129 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 92.8428963499 57.7814097925 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.869565217 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1304347826 23.2022227129 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.565217391304 0.724660767414 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 51.6980023502 51.9672348444 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.6301369863 1.8405768891 89% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.398327017261 0.441005458295 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140606479941 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.108917315307 0.0829849096947 131% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.592727121722 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.176847070959 0.147661913831 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.15953223589 0.193483328276 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.140978933381 0.0970749176394 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.605481539271 0.42659136922 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.125346718853 0.0774707102158 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.27618921965 0.312017818177 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.154976217563 0.0698173142475 222% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.