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. The explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The conclusion that ultraClean soap is the cause of 20 percent reduction in patient infection as cited by the memo from the director is skeptical. It supported it's position by pointing at the controlled laboratory study and the test of regular-strength UltraClean at individuals in the hospital at worktown. However, there are about three alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation. These alternative explanations can also plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument as shown in the paragraphs below.
To start with, The standard of living of the people in Worktown is different from that of other people in different areas where their other hospitals are located. For instance, it is possible that Worktown is a rich neighborhood where almost all the population are very concious of their hygene. Which will make bacterial growth in the area to be at the minimum. If this is the case, then the explanation for the 20 percent reduction can not be attributed to the use of UltraClean soap. Instead, the 20 percent reduction will be as a result of the growing hygiene conciousness among people in Worktown, which other people in other localities may lack.
Secondly, the 20 percent reduction can also be attributed to an inaccurate report from the hospital in Worktown. Perhaps the doctors in the hospital in workton may be very dishonest people. It is also possible that the report was prepared impetuosly, missing some actual incidence of patients infection. A situation where the report from the hospital in Worktown significantly missed out of about 60 percent of actual incidence of infection in thier report. It will be illogical to arrive at the explanation that the prompt arrived at because the actual infection in the hospital at Worktown will be definitely higher than the cases of patient infection in any other hospital.
Thirdly, it is possible that the major point of contact of patients to infection is not through the hand. If this is the case, the fewer cases of patient infection cannot be attributed to the use of UltraClean soap. For instance, the major channel in which patients get infections might be through the nose. This will imply that the majority of patients infected may still be infected even if they used the UltraClean soap. It will also mean that those not infected at Worktown have other means of prevention apart from the use of the soap. It can be that they all use a nose mask or that their air is somehow purified by the presence of specific plants lacking in other places.
In conclusion, The explanation for the reduction given in the memo is definitely flawed. Other apparent factors can replace the explanation, making it hard to base any decision on that explanation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2252 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.906 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.778 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.833 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 36, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The conclusion that ultraClean soap is the cause of 20 percent reduction in ...
^^
Line 1, column 116, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n patient infection as cited by the memo from the director is skeptical. It suppo...
^^
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” 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 are very concious of their hygene. Which will make bacterial growth in the area ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 259, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... report was prepared impetuosly, missing some actual incidence of patients infect...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, apart from, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2302.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01525054466 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84180721651 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427015250545 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 717.3 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.5991194296 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 104.636363636 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8636363636 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.68181818182 5.70786347227 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.148994318625 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0520750950253 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590083966917 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.091193959842 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500041989793 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.