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 from the director of a large group of hospitals, the director recommedns that they use UltraClean hand soap at all of their hand-washing stations based on the results from a controlled laboratory study as well as due to the decrease in patient infections in a hospital that used UltraClean hand soap. The arugment, though convincing at first glance, it seems to be dependent on a series of unwarrented assumptions.
Firstly, it is mentioned that the study of a concentrated solution of extra strenght UltraClean hand soap was carried out in a controlled laboratory. The director, by claming that the hand soap will reduce the harmful bacteria by 40 percent more, fallaciously assumes that the laboratory environment will exsist even in all the hospitals. However, this may not be the case as the laboratory environment is more easily controllable than the acutal hospital enviornments. If this scenario has any merit, then the director's argument will be sigificantly weakened.
Secondly, the directory prematurely assumes that the concentrated solution of UltraClean hand soap will not cause any side-effects. However, there is a possibility that this solution may produce some side effects which haven't been unraveled in the laboratory study. If this turn out to be true, then the director's recommendation would actually cause unanticipated complications in the patients and would damage the reputation of the hospitals.
Finally, the director mentions that there has been a significant decrease in the patient infections in a hospital that used UltraClean hand soap. Again, the director spuriously assumes that this decrease in patient infections is solely due to the use of UltraClean hand soap and nothing else. However, this is a facial assumption; in as much as the director does not provide any evidence about any other practices that might have been taken simultaneously or it is just a coincidence that the patient infections would have anyway decreased irrespecitve of the usage of UltraClean hand soap. If either of the cases has any merit, then the director's recommendation would prove to be futile.
The argument rests on a seriss of unwarrented assumption and is, therefore, unpesuasive at it stands. If the director addresses the assumptions stated above and provide answers, perhaps, in the form of a detailed systematic study, one will be in better postion to evaluate the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 18 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 386 350
No. of Characters: 1996 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.432 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.171 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.104 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.733 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.156 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 512, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...f this scenario has any merit, then the directors argument will be sigificantly weakened....
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 220, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ion may produce some side effects which havent been unraveled in the laboratory study....
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 305, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
.... If this turn out to be true, then the directors recommendation would actually cause una...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 639, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...er of the cases has any merit, then the directors recommendation would prove to be futile...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, anyway, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2055.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 385.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33766233766 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16059606967 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.464935064935 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.9879849833 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.0 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73333333333 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.359222815679 0.218282227539 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122752910776 0.0743258471296 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118620395132 0.0701772020484 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199347201835 0.128457276422 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.115297730382 0.0628817314937 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.