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. Also, the soap used in the study was condensed version. In real life, the people will used the ordinary version and the effect which was shown in the laboratory won’t happen. 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. Also, there are no information whether the patients also used the UltraClean. If the main cause of the patient infection is patient to patient contact and the patients inside the hospital used different treatment for reducing infection, UltraClean would be less helpful than it thought to be. 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.
- Several factors indicate that KNOW radio can no longer succeed as a rock and roll music station Consider for example that the number of people in our listening area over fifty years of age has increased dramatically while our total number of listeners has 58
- a nation should require all of its students to study the same national cirriculum until they enter college write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- a nation should require all of its students to study same national curriculum until they enter college. 62
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing an 83
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 332, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'use'
... version. In real life, the people will used the ordinary version and the effect whi...
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY
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
Message: Simply use 'some'.
...criterion about bacteria being harmful. Some of the bacteria which are considered harmful i...
Line 9, column 221, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME
Message: Use simply '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 : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2503.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15020576132 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59721076045 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481481481481 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 765.9 705.55239521 109% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6448323091 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.291666667 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189022111707 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0519828254889 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440630485327 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11060908661 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0501326775688 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => 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: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => 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: 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 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: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2419 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.967 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.491 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.292 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.845 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.513 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5