17. 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.
The director of hospitals has recommended that the Ultra Clean produced hand soap should be replaced throughout the entire hand-washing stations in hospitals. This recommendation cannot be accepted as it is in that it relies on the series of surmises all of which are skeptical and dubious. In what follows the most questionable assumptions, which can be challenged in one way or another, will be listed.
The first issue with the memo is about the comparison which is done at the beginning of the text. The director had compared a result of a study conducted in laboratory condition with a real situation in the hospital and assumes that the same outcome presented in the lab would be repeated in hospitals too. However, this contrast and comparison are not fair and substantial since two considered situations are irrelevant. It is obvious that a hospital does not possess the identical hygienic condition as the laboratory. Consequently, there is a possibility that the type of bacteria in the lab is not as severe as in the hospitals; so, the soap examined in the lab could defeat more bacteria in comparison of the hospital, where contains various and severe types of bacterizes. Thus, the comparison of two different conditions and expecting for gaining the identical result as the research is unsound.
Another problem with the text is that the director has considered one hospital in which the Ultra Clean soap was effective in the reduction of patient infection as an indicator that the effectiveness of this soap in whole hospitals. This generalization would be valid if the condition of the examined hospital with others is similar. For instance, there is a feasibility that the Workby hospital does cure the patients whose illness did not cause the infection. Meanwhile, another hospital in which the burnt or open-injuries patients get treatments, the number of infections is uncontrollable and this soap could not halt it. Besides, even the types of treatment of the entire hospitals are identical, this overgeneralization is not logical. Since the clearness of Workby hospital does not discuss in the memo. Maybe, the Workby hospital improves its hygienic conditions while started to use the Ultra Clean soap, and this reduction of infection is for the sake of this hyper-hygienic condition rather than the soap. Therefore, this hypothesis is also questionable and requires further evidence to validate.
Finally, even the aforesaid surmises are verified by the cogent clues, the recommendation of the director does not seem sound. The director has asserted that this soap should be replaced the currently consuming soap in the entire hand-washing stations to control the infection. The problematic part of this assertation is the entire washing stations, since not the whole crew in the hospitals has direct interaction with the patients, as a result, this comprehensive alteration seems useless. For instance, an employee who works in a separate room and far away from the patients does not require to consume the Ultra Clean soap, since he does not have an interaction with patients, this replacement of soap would not be effective in controlling the infection.
To wrap it up, the writer recommendation cannot be taken to be correct. As it relies on the series of surmises all of which are shaky and require further rearing reason for their validity.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 80
- 1.The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and suppo 66
- Do agree or disagree. One news source is a sufficient to get aware of every thing? 80
- tpo36 86
- tpo 20.1 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 744, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT
Message: “Since” 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.
...this overgeneralization is not logical. Since the clearness of Workby hospital does n...
Line 7, column 597, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO
Message: Did you mean 'consuming'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
...away from the patients does not require to consume the Ultra Clean soap, since he does not...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for instance, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2833.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 548.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1697080292 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02812178611 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.434306569343 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 891.9 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6051224412 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.173913043 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8260869565 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04347826087 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0658593475274 0.218282227539 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0213157904174 0.0743258471296 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0300649036961 0.0701772020484 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.04025244067 0.128457276422 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.026849648235 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
Note: 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 548 350
No. of Characters: 2770 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.838 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.055 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.957 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 166 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 134 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.826 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.819 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.522 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.042 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5