It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the Director's memo that UltraClean should be provided to all hand-washing stations across their hospitals due to the laboratory experiment being carried out. However, the author didn't provide additional evidence to support his claim thereby the argument is unsubstantial.
To begin with, the director failed to provide information on whether this laboratory study on UltraClean was tested or used in all the hospitals before concluding that it was of greater quality to the current liquid hand soap. Perhaps, the liquid hand soap was only used in the laboratory to ascertain its quality or maybe the number of people who used it were fewer compare to the number of people who uses the current liquid soap. Therefore, since such information was not given by the director, the argument seem baseless.
However, the writer claimed that subsequent test were carried out in one of their stations but this is not sufficient enough to attain such tenable conclusion. Moreover, the reduction of infected patients in this station does not justify that they used the new liquid hand soap often due to the fact that the memo lack additional details such as, daily statiscal records of the patient who used it or perhap a survey which might have made such assumption logical. Nevertheless, the argument doesn't hold water as this key factors were proposed in the memo.
Clearly, then, we need additional information inorder to understand the strength and weakness of the Director's memo. If the above evidence were provided, maybe the author's argument could have been considered warranted.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 267 350
No. of Characters: 1341 1500
No. of Different Words: 146 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.042 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.022 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.609 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 79 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.7 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.602 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.9 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.638 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... being carried out. However, the author didnt provide additional evidence to support ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 274, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'often' is usually put before the verb 'soap'.
Suggestion: often soap
...tify that they used the new liquid hand soap often due to the fact that the memo lack addi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 492, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ion logical. Nevertheless, the argument doesnt hold water as this key factors were pro...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 165, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...above evidence were provided, maybe the authors argument could have been considered war...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1378.0 2260.96107784 61% => OK
No of words: 265.0 441.139720559 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65346620036 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.569811320755 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 424.8 705.55239521 60% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.1278944339 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.8 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.7 5.70786347227 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172782984911 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0637848886607 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0632792402025 0.0701772020484 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0965381489273 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.050262685129 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.