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 Work town, 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 above memo, the author recommends that they should supply UltraClean hand soap at all hand-washing stations instead of currently available liquid hand soap. The author supports his argument on the basis of the report from the testing of UltraClean hand soap with hospital stuffs. However before the author’s argument is properly evaluated three unseated assumptions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author draws his conclusion about the effectiveness of the new hand soap based on the reports of the hospital staff without providing any persuasive evidence. A reader can raise questions about the authenticity of the report. The provides no admissible evidence to conform about how many people reported to the survey or how long ago the survey was conducted. Perhaps 20 people reported that the new hand soap is more effective than the previous liquid soap. Then, drawing conclusion from a report of a puny sample size is considerably unwarranted. There is a feasibility that on that day there are significantly fewer patients were admitted to the hospitals for infection. If, the author provides some statistical chart regarding the reports, then the author’s conclusion may have sounded more veritable, otherwise, if any one of the above scenarios is true, then, the author’s argument holds no water.
Secondly, the author uses one circumstances from one thing to evaluate and predict the other. The author states that after using new type of soap, in their hospital, the number of infected patients was declined, this implies it will be effective for the other hospitals too. Maybe in other hospitals’ condition is not similar at all. Perhaps most of the infected patients were admitted there for other deceases , which can not be controlled by changing hand soaps. The author’s argument is not persuasive, it can become more admissible if, the author provide more concrete evidence as statistical data charts of the patients of each of the hospitals, then a reader may have some veritable facts, otherwise, if any one of the above scenarios is true then, the author’s argument is built unreliably.
Thirdly, the author states that only applying the new hand soap will prevent most of the people from infections without any viability of the proposed assumption. Maybe people in the area was admitted to those hospital for more serious decease, which does not have any relation with cleaning hands. The proposed idea may not be worked as expected. If the author is able to provide scientific evidence about the supplements of the new hand soaps, then it should help to necessitate the author’s recommendation, otherwise if the above situation is true, then, the author’s argument is seriously unwarranted.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to reliance on some unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to justify the three assumptions above or offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of systematic research study) then, it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that people should switch to the Ultra Clean hand soap from the current liquid hand soap.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 511 350
No. of Characters: 2588 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.755 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.065 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.264 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.402 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ting the authors proposed recommendation , three questions must be answered. F...
^^
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...llege. Perhaps according to the teachers , the education quality of the college wi...
^^
Line 3, column 524, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e college will improve if, in the future coeducation policy will facilitated. If,...
^^
Line 3, column 550, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'facilitate'
Suggestion: facilitate
... in the future coeducation policy will facilitated. If, the authors provide more evidence ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 288, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...voted in favour of all-female education, when was the survey conducted? Was the ...
^^
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ample of the survey representative ? The author uses percentage without mentionin...
^^
Line 5, column 935, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... any one of the above situations is true , then, the authors’ recommendation is bu...
^^
Line 7, column 104, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...token evidence? The authors predict that if the school remains all-female, then, ...
^^
Line 7, column 525, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ontributions were declined significantly . Then, by admitting male students will i...
^^
Line 7, column 678, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
... be more alumnae to donate financially. Furthermore the authors did not provide any evidenc...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 730, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...the authors did not provide any evidence , whether the students’ morale will enhan...
^^
Line 7, column 1004, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'anyone'?
Suggestion: anyone
...nd past contribution of the alumnae. If any one above scenarios is true, then, the auth...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1047, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... one above scenarios is true, then, the authors argument is seriously unwarranted. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 439, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...-female, then the Morales among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 35.0 16.3942115768 213% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3313.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 602.0 441.139720559 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50332225914 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95335121839 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08070362571 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.405315614618 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1049.4 705.55239521 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.0638313996 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.703703704 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2962962963 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.81481481481 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 5.25449101796 266% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.198860829616 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635873036339 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107364194312 0.0701772020484 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157479555072 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132651139157 0.0628817314937 211% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 98.500998004 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.