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 our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (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 director of a large group of hospitals contends that Ultraclean should be supplied at all hand-washing stations, including those used by visitors, throughout their hospital system due to their controlled laboratory study and their recent test. However, there are several logical fallacies and misconstrue which the director neglected.
First, the director neglected the possibility of difference between the laboratory and the real life. In the real life, the number of bacteria existing in our hands differ because it varies whether the person work alone or work at crowded area. To confirm the statement, the director must explain other factors that could influence the number of bacteria have been explicitly excluded and the only reason is a concentrated solution of extra strength Ultraclean.
Second, the director did not provide the exact number of harmful bacteria which was initially existing. If the bacteria living on the hand is too many, reducing them 40 percent would not make big difference. Furthermore, there are no specific criterion about bacteria being harmful. Some of the bacteria which are considered harmful inside the lung could be helpful to hands, reducing the frequency of rusty skin. If the director wants to validate one’s claim, more precise data and standard of the experiment must be provided.
Also, the director did not explain about when the test was actually held. On the memo, it is just mentioned as “recent”. “Recent” is opaque language, it could be a month ago, a year ago, maybe a decade ago. More importantly, there is no information provided whether the data of the study was given after the test. If the doctors, nurses, and visitors knew that the Ultraclean is better than the previous one, they would have used more frequently, leading to decline of patient infection. The director must provide information about when the test was held, especially whether the result of the study was given before the test.
Lastly, there could be other factors why the patient infection decreased which the director might have missed. For example, during the test, there could be widespread education of washing hands more precisely and longer period of time. In this case the reason of lower patient infection could be not because the use of new soap, but the change of washing hands. The director must confirm that other determinants which could give impact on patient infection have been stymied to show that the only reason of the reduction is the new soap.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'criteria', 'criterions'?
Suggestion: criteria; criterions
...nce. Furthermore, there are no specific criterion about bacteria being harmful. Some of t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 284, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...criterion about bacteria being harmful. Some of the bacteria which are considered harmful i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 221, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...washing hands more precisely and longer period of time. In this case the reason of lower patie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2111.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 408.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17401960784 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6119942912 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519607843137 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9545258734 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.55 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.194978144547 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0524967012437 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.045271821749 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107332815437 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469640017402 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.