In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals During our rece

Essay topics:

"In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During our recent test of regular-strength UltraClean with doctors, nurses, and visitors at our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (a 20 percent reduction) 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, including those used by visitors, throughout our hospital system."

In this argument, the director of the large hospital group asserts that the entire hospital system should utilize the UltraClean as a hand-washing material in order to reduce the serious patient infections. However, this argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First, the argument assumes that the concentrated solution of UltraClean is so effective that it kills 40 percent more infectious bacteria than did the soap currently used in the hospitals. Yet, in order for the argument to be successful, it would have to show what happens with the concentrated sample of the soap currently used. UltraClean may demonstrate such a successful result because the concentrated solution was tested.

Second, the director states that significantly fewer infection cases were reported than any other hospitals during the trial of UltraClean at the hospital in Worktown. However, the claim does not contain a solid ground. The cases of infection among the patients decreased at the hospital where the trial was conducted. However, without the absolute numbers of all patients, comparing the numbers of cases is meaningless. In other words, there are two cases, 20 cases of infection out of 1000 patients and 10 cases out of 100. Although the absolute number decreases, there is no doubt that the first case is more favorable.

Lastly, the argument further assumes that replacing the current soap with UltraClean will help the patient prevent severe infections. The problem with the argument is that not every patient washes their hands with soaps. It may be because patients simply don’t want to or believe that using anything in the hospital cause harm than good. And the number of infectious cases had fluctuated regardless of how many liquid hand soaps had been used. Unless the concrete relationship between usage of soaps and the number of infection cases is presented, this argument doesn’t hold.

In conclusion, the argument fails to provide enough evidence for the necessity of replacing the current soap with a new one, UltraClean, to prevent infectious diseases because it primarily relies on weak assumptions mentioned above. Since the argument does not present reliable data on the absolute numbers of all patient, the condition of current soaps in the lab, and patients’ tendency of using soaps, it lacks logical reasoning and evidence.

Votes
Average: 4.6 (4 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 432, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e the concentrated solution was tested. Second, the director states that signifi...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 629, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... that the first case is more favorable. Lastly, the argument further assumes tha...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, therefore, in conclusion, no doubt, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2048.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38947368421 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85414118145 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521052631579 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6208561661 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.777777778 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1111111111 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27777777778 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212779621102 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659999217661 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0715556949852 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123331527418 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0839830672547 0.0628817314937 134% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.

samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appeared…

--------------------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1974 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.733 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.222 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.473 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5