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 author makes an argument that there was a 20 percent reduction in patient infections all because of the UltraClean soap, which could be true if it was not for the large quantity of alternative explanations that could be provided for all of the author’s statements. These alternative explanations seem to have not been considered by the author.
To begin with, the author cites an experiment done in a controlled laboratory where a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in hospitals. Now, the sample of UltraClean hand soap used here is mentioned as concentrated and of extra strength. It could be that the reduction in bacteria was simply because of the extra concentration used and not the product itself. There is another unexplored explanation that the same strength and concentration of regular hand soap could give the same results. Information about the original reduction of bacteria is also not provided making the 40 percent increase less credible. If the reduction by regular liquid hand soaps was small to begin with a 40 percent increase wouldn’t make too much of a difference.
Furthermore, during the test of UltraClean in hospitals of Worktown only regular strength of the hand soap was used making this test and the test in the laboratory unrelated. Strength of the soap plays an important factor in determining how useful the soap is against bacteria. Also, this test has been conducted in only a single hospital and not multiple hospitals spread over a large geographic region, making the test less reliable.
Finally, the results of the test which show that patient infection percentage reduced are also very questionable. There are multiple alternative explanations for this decrease in infection rate. It could be due to the current season which might not be suitable for most of the infection causing bacteria. A 20 percent decrease could also be due to a lesser number of patients which bring the overall infection count to a lower number. The author does not specify the time between the hospital and laboratory test. Thus, another alternative explanation could be that during this time in between the expertise of the hospital staff increased and number of infections decreased by 20 percent. The lifestyle of the patients might have also been improved due to renovations and new technologies introduced in the hospital which could lead to less infections.
There are a number of alternative explanations which poke holes in the author’s argument and rival their statement. There is very little reason why the explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections could be due to the use of UltraClean soap. More tests would have to be conducted to provide a basis for this argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2340 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.021 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.821 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.478 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 238, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...explanations that could be provided for all of the author’s statements. These alternative ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 731, 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.
... the 40 percent increase less credible. If the reduction by regular liquid hand so...
^^
Line 7, column 838, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun infections is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ced in the hospital which could lead to less infections. There are a number of al...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, furthermore, if, so, thus, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2394.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14838709677 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89211254098 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.406451612903 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 737.1 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.794771813 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.0 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1428571429 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.61904761905 5.70786347227 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.275318810133 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0962782871083 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113584080344 0.0701772020484 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159847142218 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144874452686 0.0628817314937 230% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.