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.
The prompt suggestes the idea of the director to supply Ultraclean at all the hand-washing stations becasue of its efficiency in reducing germs and bacteria. There are certain logical flaws in the premises of the director which are to be mentioned followed by sufficient clarification.
Firstly, the director believed that Ultraclean hand soap is much more fficient in reducing germs because of its concentrated solution. But in his conclusion he did not mention about the concentration of that Ultraclen soap. There is no clearity reagrding the concentration of the soap. As it is evidenced from the prompt that a concentrated solution of Ultraclean provided better outcome than other contemporary hand soaps then it can be conjectured that the conclusive Ultraclean soap will be high in concentration. But what is the guarantee of it being high in concentration? What if the users use the Ultraclean soap in low concentration and might not be advantaged at all than the currently available ones? As the author did not provide any distinction about the concentration of the Ultraclean in his conclusive sentence, the argument is succumb to misinterpretations and that is why the argument short of conclusive evidences.
Second to count is that - the director believes the reduction in infection and bacteria have been the upshot of using the Ultraclean. But what if the director is precluding the improved environment of the hospitals? What if the environment has been largely improved by the authority of those hospitals as they might take necessary measures to reamin it in sound environment. And becasue of the improved health condition of the hospital the health condition of the patients is also improving. If that is the case then it might make the appreciation of Ultraclean soap suspicious. Might be the case that the overall quality of the soaps used in the hospitals has not been changed at all and the doctors and nurses might be in the midst of an experimental research regarding the psyche of the hospital officials. So, if any of these cases are true then it will be tough to come into a straighforward conclusion of the productivity of Ultraclean soap.
Thirdly, the director assumed that the Ultraclean soap will be equally effective for the visitors of the hospitals, given that the soap is quite worth of use in hospitals. The director ignores the otherwise case - what if the the soap is not equally effective towards the visitors? As the Ultraclea soap is mainly used by the doctors, patients and nurses so it might not faulty keep that - the soap is quite effective when it comes to the germs and bacterias; inside of the hospital. Might not necessarily be same for an outside germ or bacteria, came inside with the visiotors. Also, there is no proven evidence of the effectiveness of the soap regarding the outside bacterias and germs from the side of the director. So, this lack of evidence is also open to dispute. If the worst case is turned out to be true then it might be hard for the director to suggest the soap to use in all the hospitals as it hardly make the situation better. Also, the director lack of necesary examples and evidences make the suggestions of using Ultraclean vulnerable to any personal advantage from the side of the director. What if the director has been accounted being the ambassedor of the brand of the Ultraclean soap and that is why he is trying to promote that brand into his hospitals too. The prompt has not been provided with any kind of evidence regarding preclusion of this fact and that is why the suggestion of Ultraclean might be interpreted in such way which has nothing to do with the worth of the product.
So, looking at all the menioned points it would not be a bad idea to assess all the situations carefully before coming into a solid conclusion as they director is not so much sound in his reasoning.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 13 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 661 350
No. of Characters: 3166 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.07 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.79 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.876 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 146 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 95 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.481 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.457 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.815 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 844, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'succumbed'.
Suggestion: succumbed
...is conclusive sentence, the argument is succumb to misinterpretations and that is why t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tion of the patients is also improving. If that is the case then it might make the...
^^
Line 5, column 811, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , if” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...g the psyche of the hospital officials. So, if any of these cases are true then it wil...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...or ignores the otherwise case - what if the the soap is not equally effective towards t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 223, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...or ignores the otherwise case - what if the the soap is not equally effective towards t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, look, regarding, second, so, then, third, thirdly, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 44.0 19.6327345309 224% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 96.0 55.5748502994 173% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3224.0 2260.96107784 143% => OK
No of words: 661.0 441.139720559 150% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.87745839637 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.07049507093 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94352168844 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.382753403933 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1011.6 705.55239521 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.64926524 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.407407407 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4814814815 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2962962963 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236984541434 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814592551174 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.051082843844 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132625666363 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716638661476 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 98.500998004 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.