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 the memo, the director of a large group of hospital states that they should use the Ultraclean hand soap. The director has come to this conclusion based on the report submitted by the hospital that shows the use of Ultraclean hand soap reduces the cases of patient infection by 20 percent. However, while the conclusion stated by the director might hold water, but it rests upon several unwarranted assumptions, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following three pieces of evidence must be addressed.

First of all, the Ultrasoap, which was manufactured in the laboratory, shows the results which produced the 40% greater reduction in harmful bacteria. However, the result shown here is too vague. The director does not state which type of harmful bacteria is killed by the UltraClean hand soap. It might be possible that this soap kills the bacteria which are not prominent in the hospital. There are many types of harmful bacteria found in the world, and this is possible given that 40% of the bacteria which are killed are not found in the hospital. Thus if this scenario holds true, the conclusion drawn by the director is significantly hampered.

Secondly, the director has cited the result that the "concentration solution of extra strength" of Ultrasoap kills 40 percent of more bacteria. Nevertheless, during the test, they used regular strength UltraClean. So it may be possible that this regular strength UltraClean cannot be able to kill as much as germs as extra strength solution. So, the use of this solution might be proven insignificant. Thus if the above case is valid, the director's claim is not warranted, and his argument is not overly persuasive.

At last, the director has stated that the use of UltraClean hand soap resulted in a 20 percent reduction of cases of patient infection. Nevertheless, the other conditions of the hospitals are not clearly stated. It might be probable that these hospitals did not get many patients during the survey. So, the decrease in 20 percent of infected patient cases due to the decrease in the overall population of the patients. It is also possible that the given hospital in the group also adopted some other measures other than the use of UltraClean hand soap to decrease patient infection cases, which is not stated here. Thus, if any of the scenarios have merit, then the director's claim does not hold water.

In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several indefensible assumptions. If the director is able to provide more evidence for the above three assumptions(perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it is possible to evaluate that the decrease in cases of the patient infection is the direct consequence of the use of UltraClean hand soap.

Votes
Average: 6.2 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 552, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e killed are not found in the hospital. Thus if this scenario holds true, the conclu...
^^^^
Line 5, column 413, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...solution might be proven insignificant. Thus if the above case is valid, the directo...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion, first of all

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2384.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05084745763 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93644679237 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.421610169492 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 731.7 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.4568002185 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.652173913 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5217391304 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13043478261 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289241511101 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890694231209 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0848242771674 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165715673344 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336580012532 0.0628817314937 54% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?

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

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 472 350
No. of Characters: 2305 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.661 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.78 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.212 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5