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.
The director of a large group of hospitals asseverates that UltraClean should be exploited at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospital system since on the basis of some field test results done at a hospital in Worktown, fewer cases of patient infection have been reported after the doctors, nurses, and vistors used UltraClean hand soap. The author, however, needs to appraise several pieces of evidence before attempting to arrive at the argument that UltraClean hand soap should be widely used in the hospital system.
First and foremost, the director cites in the memo that a controlled laboratory study reveals that a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap could significantly reduce more harmful bacteria than those currently used in the hospitals. Though the result of this study might seem compelling, however, one piece of evidence that is missing in order to fully corroborate the soundness of the finding is that where the study was conducted was in a controlled environment, which is nothing like that in an open environment such as that in hospitals, where patrons and staff walk in and out frequently. Without the evidence to substantiate that the same reduction effect could also transpire when UltraClean hand soap is used in a less-controlled environment, the argument that the hospitals should switch to using UltraClean hand soap should be taken with a grain of salt.
Another evidence that should be equally weighed lies in the recent test done at the hospital in Worktown. Granted, the result turned out to be positive, where the use of UltraClean minimize the reportage of patient infection (specifically, twenty-percent reduction), but there is no such evidence to attest to the causality between using UltraClean hand soap and the reduction of the patient infection. Fewer cases of patient reduction might have sprung from when the ailments that Worktown hospital patients suffer from are less likely to induce infection. These patients might just suffer from minor conditions such as stomach, migraine, or fracture. whereas patients at other hospitals are afflicted with open wounds, severe scratches, and the like, the complications of which might be more susceptible to infection. Therefore, certainty of the causal relation between doctors, nurses, and visitors using UltraClean hand soap and patients reporting less incidence of infection might be compromised. Besides, Worktown might have designed better and clear-cut quarantine areas, in which patients are better protected from infection, such as the use of ultraviolet lighting or a whole-body disinfection spray. Whatever the case is, the evidence of direct causality between the hospital staff members using UltraClean hand soap and the patients suffering less from infection should be furnished in order to the argument to be cemented.
The last piece of evidence that is needed for evaluation lies in the application of UltraClean at all hand-washing stations, including those used by visitors. Specifically, mandating hospital staff and medical practitioners to use the recommended hand soap might be efficacious in preventing serious patient infections, were the efficacy of the UltraClean Soap well-established. Those medical practitioners might also be wary of the consequences of patients contracting infection. However, whether such effect is likely to hold for visitors should be thoroughly discussed since visitors come from different places. Whether using UltraClean hand soap solely for visitors is still debatable. Besides, it is likely that after a certain spell of time, the bacteria will have developed antibody and the UltraClean hand soap might not be positively effective as it is showcased in the memo. Therefore, the author should also consider whether such efficacy of UltraClean hand soap would endure or not before averring to ask all the hospitals chasing to UltraClean.
All told, the argument in the memo seems ostensible appealing; however, a closer examination reveals that certain pieces of evidence are wanting in order for a full justification of the argument. These arguments entail, if not limited to, the extendability of the controlled test result to real hospital environment, the underlying root of patient infection and their conditions, and finally, the applicability of UltraClean hand soap at all stations.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The director of a large group of hospitals asseverates that UltraClean should be exploited at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospital system since on the basis of some field test results done at a hospital in Worktown, fewer cases of patient infection have been reported after the doctors, nurses, and vistors used UltraClean hand soap.
Error: asseverates Suggestion: asserted
Error: vistors Suggestion: visitors
Sentence: These arguments entail, if not limited to, the extendability of the controlled test result to real hospital environment, the underlying root of patient infection and their conditions, and finally, the applicability of UltraClean hand soap at all stations.
Error: extendability Suggestion: No alternate word
----------------
argument 1 -- OK, and also it is a concentrated solution, not a regular one.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
No. of Words: 673 350
-----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 673 350
No. of Characters: 3622 1500
No. of Different Words: 272 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.093 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.382 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.917 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 278 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 228 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 181 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 117 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.296 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 652, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Whereas
...such as stomach, migraine, or fracture. whereas patients at other hospitals are afflict...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 134, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...reveals that certain pieces of evidence are wanting in order for a full justification of th...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, first, however, if, so, still, therefore, well, whereas, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 100.0 55.5748502994 180% => OK
Nominalization: 39.0 16.3942115768 238% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3702.0 2260.96107784 164% => OK
No of words: 673.0 441.139720559 153% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50074294205 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.09335287823 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00714676623 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423476968796 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1143.9 705.55239521 162% => 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: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.2053524779 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.272727273 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.5909090909 23.324526521 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.226835904128 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0838599967112 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747557176216 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150712030709 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0704493171834 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.8 14.3799401198 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.57 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 173.0 98.500998004 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.