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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the memo from the director of large group of hospitals, it is stated that a new UltraClean soap have produced a better result in killing the harmful bacteria in comparison to the current liquid hand soaps used in the hospitals. However, this argument is based on certain assumptions and lacks evidence which might render the argument unconvincing.
Firstly, the argument fails to provide a validity on the study conducted by the controlled laboratory. Perhaps, UltraClean hand soap is not the only soap that kills bacteria more effectively than any other hand wash. There is a possibility that the efficacy of the soap solely depends on the concentration of a certain chemical present in the soap. If a liquid hand wash had the same concentration of that chemical it could perhaps produce the same effect as that of the UltraClean hand soap. The author also fails to mention any evidence on the reliability of the closed laboratory. It is plausible that the laboratory might have had a discrepancy and published the wrong results.
Secondly, the argument assumes the soap to be effective in terms of destroying only bacteria, it doesn’t take into account on the effectiveness of the soap on various other viruses present. The argument backs up the study and its efficacy only by the increase of 40 percent in the killing of bacteria. The argument also needs to provide more information and on whether the ultraclean soap will be able to destroy the numerous viruses that are present along with the bacteria.
Moreover, the argument prematurely assumes that the use of this UltraClean hand soap has led to the reduction in patient infection in contrast to other hospitals in their group. However, this might not hold true as the argument fails to provide any justification on whether the hospital in worktown is roughly comparable to their other hospital. In other words, circumstances in one cannot be used to generalise and make prediction about other branches. Perhaps, there is a possibility that while the Ultra clean soap was being tested or used in the hospital, the number of patients visiting the hospital might have gone down because of a better performance by their other branches.
Had the argument provided statistical details of the ultraclean soap being tested in various other hospitals and not just the one hospital in worktown. They could have analysed the soap considering various aspects. Even then the argument would have had to provide information about how effective the soap would have been in dealing with other deadly viruses.
In conclusion, as the argument stands now is flawed because of its several unwarranted assumptions and wanting of more empirical evidence on the efficacy of the UltraClean soap. If the author is able to provide substantial evidence for the above made assumptions then the argument could be fully evaluated. However, since it fails to do so it forms an unconvincing case.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
0No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2403 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.955 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.747 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.353 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 683, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...epancy and published the wrong results. Secondly, the argument assumes the soap ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, while, in conclusion, in contrast, in contrast to, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2452.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06611570248 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82154255394 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.429752066116 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 781.2 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8806990874 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.761904762 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0476190476 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57142857143 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.276581398387 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0896536562103 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0933474674696 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152352835271 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0892614585558 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => 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: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => 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.