The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
"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."
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.
In the memo, the director suggests that all the hospital system should switch to ultraclean soap because it is better at eradicating the harmful bacteria than the one in use. The argument is based on a lab study and infection rates of a hospital in Worktown that uses ultraclean soap. Unfortunately, the argument is rife with the unsubstantiated assumptions and loses its persuasiveness if those assumptions prove unwarranted.
First, the author assumes that the success of the concentrated extra strength UltraClean would equate to the success of the regular solution of the UltraClean soap. However, the concentrated solutions tend to be more proficient at the reduction in bacteria compared to the regular solutions. So, it is possible that the regular-strength UltraClean performs worse than the liquid soap that is currently in use. If that’s the case, the author’s argument would weaken significantly. In order to reinforce his argument, the author should repeat the study with the regular concentration of the ultraclean soap.
Secondly, the author claims that the most significant reason behind lower patient infection rate of the hospital in Worktown is the usage of UltraClean soap. Also, there are not any information given about the patient infection rates of the hospital before starting to use UltraClean. Perhaps, the hospital was already better than the other hospitals before changing their soup, and thus, the infection rate was not related to the UltraClean at all. Moreover, it is also possible that though an increase occurred during the period UltraClean used, this rise was caused by other factors such as increasing the chlorine amount of water, hence the ultraclean’s effect were non-existent or insignificant. If this is true, the argument loses its coherency. The author should check and make sure that there were no recent changes in the hospital other than changing their soap.
Finally, the author assumes that the ultrasoap would prove itself better in preventing the serious bacterial infections than the currently used soap. Even if it’s assumed that the ultrasoap lowers the bacterial infection rate, it doesn’t translate to the lower amount of “serious” bacterial infections. For instance, bacteria percentages killed by the two soaps could be different, maybe the regular soap excels in killing the more harmful bacteria, whereas the ultrasoap excels in killing the bacteria that causes mild issues. Consequently, it is not outside of possibility that the regular soap is better at preventing the serious bacterial infections.
To conclude, all the evidence supporting the usage of the ultrasoap in the hospitals are based on numerous assumptions such as the regular solution would be better as much as the concentrated, the hospital’s lower infection rate is caused by the ultrasoap and average performance in the killing bacteria also equates a formidable performance in exterminating the more dangerous bacteria. While it is possible that the claim is true, it is not very compelling as it stands.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2507 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.234 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.907 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.735 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 428, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...if those assumptions prove unwarranted. First, the author assumes that the succe...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 873, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ospital other than changing their soap. Finally, the author assumes that the ult...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 474, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...it is not very compelling as it stands.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, while, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2589.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41631799163 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01407519039 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441422594142 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 794.7 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.8967382889 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.45 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199914156592 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717114015335 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613309603679 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121965004337 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657157975956 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.