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. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations, including those used by visitors, throughout our hospital system.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
As pointed out from the memo, it suggests that the hospital should supply UltraClean hand soaps to prevent serious patient infections according to two cited reports. However, more evidence should be revealed before claiming this recommendation to be valid.
First of all, the recommendation is based on a laboratory report mentioning UltraClean can reduce the harmful bacteria by 40% more effectiveness. However, it is unclear whether the harmful bacteria tested in the laboratory are the same categories of bacteria that are common in the hospital. Indeed, if there are two different categories of bacteria between the hospital and the laboratory, then the validity of this report is questionable, since it can’t be applied to the hospital directly. Therefore, it is essential to confirm the similarity of the “harmful bacteria” to further decide the suitability of leveraging the claim from the report.
Secondly, another report shows that the patient infection is 20% lower after adopting UltraClean in the hospital. Regarding this limited data, it is premature to assume the lower infection rate is purely contributed by UltraClean if no other relevant factors are being assessed simultaneously. For example, it is also possible that the rate has decreased because of fewer surgeries conducted which lead to fewer infections in total. Hence, in order to make this report valid, it is vital to incorporate other potential contributing factors.
Last, the conclusion of the memo indicates that by supplying UltraClean, the hospital can prevent “serious patient infections”. This is another suspicious element, in that the memo doesn’t mention whether there are different serious levels of patient infections from the previous reports. If different levels of patient infections do exist, it is problematic to conclude UltraClean can prevent “serious patient infections”, since no data directly support this statement. Thus, further examination of UltraClean functions on differential levels of patient infections is required.
To sum up, in order to increase the validity of the recommendation, it is vital to incorporate more details relating to the harmful bacteria comparison, all the contributing factors to the patient infections, as well as the explanation of multiple levels of patient infections. Only by doing so, can the recommendation be more convincing.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 362 350
No. of Characters: 1954 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.362 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.398 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.041 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.936 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.625 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 229, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... should be revealed before claiming this recommendation to be valid. First of ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, as well as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63988919668 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19769831511 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487534626039 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 634.5 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0146661725 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.25 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5625 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.25 5.70786347227 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111626255164 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.043016598286 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494407228559 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0667457815921 0.128457276422 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0477238524808 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.73 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.45 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.