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.”
The statement presents an explanation about current reduction in patient infections in the Worktown hospital from its director. As the director claims they have changed the regular-strength UltraClean hand soap with a new concentrated solution of extra strength. The author negligently believes that the reason of 20 percent reduction in patient infection is only changing the hand soap. However, he remiss multiple alternative explanations and possibilities that make the argument refutable.
The first major problem about the statement is that the author does not mention side effects of the new hand soap. Perhaps, the fact that it owns an extra strength formulation can cause irreparable effects on the skin by constant consumption. Additionally, if the author seeks to compare currently used hand soap in the hospitals with the new solution, he needs to provide enough information about the feature and quality of the currently used hand soap. It is possible that the hospital is using a type of hand soap that cannot satisfy sanitary standards so that the new product can reduce the harmful bacteria for about 40 percent greater than the currently used low-quality hand soap. Moreover, the price and brand of the current hand soap need to be clarified. Whether the brand is specifically producing hand soaps with high sanitary solutions for hospitals or it is a regular kind of soap for house usage should be determined to evaluate the explanation.
Another neglected explanation for the statement which is totally neglected by the author is the price of the soap. Perhaps, the hospital’s budget cannot afford a high-quality soap that led them to use a soap that is cheap but it is not suitable for using in a hospital. Furthermore, relying on the unexamined presumption that bacteria on the hand is the major source of infection is misleading. It is immediately evident that the majority of doctors and nurses use special gloves during the visits or surgery so the considering that the infections are only transferred via hands and providing a solution of using extra-strength soaps are imprudent.
Let us assume that the new solution of hand soap has contributed to reduction of patient infections in Worktown hospital. How the director can support his claim that the hospital owns this reduction to the new soap only? There are no available sufficient evidence regarding recent changes in the hospital. Perhaps, rules of regular cleaning of the building have changed and the whole area is free from bacteria. Also the author argues that no other hospital has reported such a reduction in infections. To make the explanation creditable and irrefutable, he should compare situations of the nurses, doctors and patients of the hospitals with each other. There is a possibility that people who visit the Worktown hospital obtain of a high level of public education regarding salubrious lifestyle.
To summarize, the reduction in patient infection may have caused by numerous sources which are missed by the author. As mentioned above, the director is required to ponder over the alternative explanations to discover real sources of this event. Relying on the one and only change of type of soap leads to a misleading result and makes the argument rife with holes.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-appeared…
--------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 530 350
No. of Characters: 2699 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.798 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.092 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.84 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 166 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.522 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.542 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 129, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
...he Worktown hospital from its director. As the director claims they have changed t...
^^
Line 4, column 412, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...d the whole area is free from bacteria. Also the author argues that no other hospita...
^^^^
Line 5, column 367, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and makes the argument rife with holes.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2750.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18867924528 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93087564388 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458490566038 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 859.5 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2514124068 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.583333333 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0833333333 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.375 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.242318779845 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0741237297251 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0668840885681 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143161337916 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0732974884124 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => 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: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.84 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 138.0 98.500998004 140% => 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?
---------------------
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.