The director of a large group of hospitals recommends to supply UltraClean, an extra strength lequid hand soap, to prevent serious infections in his hospital system. In order to shore up his recommendation, he has given the example of hospital in Worktown where the use of this soap resulted twenty per cents reduction in patient infections. The evidences furnished by the director might be true; however, owing to the lack of many extra hard facts in the memo, the assumption, and the finally derived conclusion sounds utterly skeptical.
First of all, the director explicitly mentions that the test of the UltraClean hand soap was carriedout under controlled laboratory condition: under a certain tempetature, atmospheric pressure, given humidity level, and so forth. The condition outside the laboratory might not be controlled (as in the laboratory), however. From scientific point of view, there might be huge differences between these two conditions. Clearly, the director should not assume that the experiment successfully conducted on controlled environment, fits under the outer - and uncontrolled environment, too. In addition, the director needs to make clear whether the condition of the hospital was also controlled; if it was also controlled, then the recommendation put forwarded by him would be utterly fleet footed before considering many important issues.
Similarly. in the memo, the director has mentioned 40% reduction of infection cases in the laboratory condition, and 20% reduction in the hospital. Nevertheless, without knowing the data, its nature, statistical ways and means applied, it is really challenging to make any adjudication regarding the result. Thirty peoples, for example, might have involved in the experiment - which is everything but reliable and significant from statistical point of view. Hence, the director should make it clear about the way research was conducted, and how it was deconstructed.
Finally and probably most importantly, the director unfairly assume that the same soap, UltraClean, would work in all the hospitals system - which might have dispersed in different cities. Cities X and Y, for example, both have the hospitals. What if city X hospital has already found the better option then UltraClean? Thus, the director would have incorporated the concerns, and issues of other hospitals at boot to further prop up his argument.
Therefore at the end of the day, it is clear that the argument, made by the director, is rife with doubts: which needs extra hard facts to further corroborate it. He should not strive to avoid the concerns raised above for a robust argument . However, at present condition, this argument - in the memo - is not beyond the dispute, and would likely to deserve no dice from the higher officials who are going to debate on this proposal.
The director of a large group of hospitals recommends to supply UltraClean, an extra strength liquid hand soap, to prevent serious infections in his hospital system. In order to shore up his recommendation, he has given the example of hospital in Worktown where the use of this soap resulted twenty per cents reduction in patient infections. The evidences furnished by the director might be true; however, owing to the lack of many extra hard facts in the memo, the assumption, and the finally derived conclusion sounds utterly skeptical.
First of all, the director explicitly mentions that the test of the UltraClean hand soap was carried out under controlled laboratory condition: under a certain temperature, atmospheric pressure, given humidity level, and so forth. The condition outside the laboratory might not be controlled (as in the laboratory), however. From scientific point of view, there might be huge differences between these two conditions. Clearly, the director should not assume that the experiment successfully conducted on controlled environment, fits under the outer - and uncontrolled environment, too. In addition, the director needs to make clear whether the condition of the hospital was also controlled; if it was also controlled, then the recommendation put forwarded by him would be utterly fleet footed before considering many important issues.
Similarly. in the memo, the director has mentioned 40% reduction of infection cases in the laboratory condition, and 20% reduction in the hospital. Nevertheless, without knowing the data, its nature, statistical ways and means applied, it is really challenging to make any adjudication regarding the result. Thirty peoples, for example, might have involved in the experiment - which is everything but reliable and significant from statistical point of view. Hence, the director should make it clear about the way research was conducted, and how it was deconstructed.
Finally and probably most importantly, the director unfairly assume that the same soap, UltraClean, would work in all the hospitals system - which might have dispersed in different cities. Cities X and Y, for example, both have the hospitals. What if city X hospital has already found the better option then UltraClean? Thus, the director would have incorporated the concerns, and issues of other hospitals at boot to further prop up his argument.
Therefore at the end of the day, it is clear that the argument, made by the director, is rife with doubts: which needs extra hard facts to further corroborate it. He should not strive to avoid the concerns raised above for a robust argument . However, at present condition, this argument - in the memo - is not beyond the dispute, and would likely to deserve no dice from the higher officials who are going to debate on this proposal.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 304, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cents'' or 'cent's'?
Suggestion: cents'; cent's
...he use of this soap resulted twenty per cents reduction in patient infections. The ev...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 369, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...scientific point of view, there might be huge differences between these two condi...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
... considering many important issues. Similarly. in the memo, the director has mentione...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 12, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...g many important issues. Similarly. in the memo, the director has mentioned 40...
^^
Line 6, column 65, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the director has mentioned 40% reduction of infection cases in the laboratory con...
^^
Line 6, column 263, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'making'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: making
...means applied, it is really challenging to make any adjudication regarding the result. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 402, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the experiment - which is everything but reliable and significant from statistica...
^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...ucted, and how it was deconstructed. Finally and probably most importantly, the dire...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 123, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'hospitals'' or 'hospital's'?
Suggestion: hospitals'; hospital's
...soap, UltraClean, would work in all the hospitals system - which might have dispersed in ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...oot to further prop up his argument. Therefore at the end of the day, it is clear that...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 241, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...cerns raised above for a robust argument . However, at present condition, this arg...
^^
Line 10, column 304, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...condition, this argument - in the memo - is not beyond the dispute, and would lik...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'really', 'regarding', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'in addition', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.239845261122 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.135396518375 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0812379110251 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0599613152805 0.0520304965353 115% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0251450676983 0.0272364105082 92% => OK
Prepositions: 0.117988394584 0.125424944231 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0502901353965 0.0416121511921 121% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.97081306788 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0212765957447 0.026700313972 80% => OK
Particles: 0.00580270793037 0.001811407834 320% => OK
Determiners: 0.110251450677 0.113004496875 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0232108317215 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0135396518375 0.0127820249294 106% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2842.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 452.0 446.07635468 101% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28761061947 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.37389380531 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.311946902655 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.252212389381 0.208842608468 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.174778761062 0.135150697306 129% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97081306788 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 207.018472906 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553097345133 0.469332199767 118% => OK
Word variations: 66.123163323 52.1807786196 127% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.6 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0935698702 57.7814097925 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.1 141.986410481 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.9 0.724660767414 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 12.0 3.58251231527 335% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 53.7946902655 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.85087719298 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.521466582095 0.441005458295 118% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.10021162447 0.135418324435 74% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0815162234747 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.574958984353 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.178256291238 0.147661913831 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.207221921553 0.193483328276 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.179775890085 0.0970749176394 185% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.449170217241 0.42659136922 105% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0479142723019 0.0774707102158 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.373379985641 0.312017818177 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.190555112415 0.0698173142475 273% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.