While it might be true that we should provide UltraClean to all hospitals for it is better than other kinds of hand soaps, this argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions. Primarily, the assumption that UltraClean is better than the liquid hand soap used before is based on flawed evidence.
First, we should not extrapolate the experiment results conducted in certain hospitals to the whole hospital system. Since the research is conducted in a few hospitals, it might be influenced by some factors restricted in these areas, such as code for medical staff to sanitize their hands or endemic diseases that struck these hospitals. Thus, such evidence is not valid enough to generalize to the whole hospital system. To give another example, it is indicated that UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in their hospitals. However, it is possible that the hand soaps in these hospitals are dated, which makes them ineffective. If that is true, then the change to use UltraClean is unnecessary, they only have to renew the soap currently used to prevent patient infection.
In addition, it is also claimed that during a subsequent test the hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in their group. However, there might be other reasons why the hospital in Workby has fewer cases of patient infection. First, we should not confound numbers with percentages. It is possible that there are less patients in the hospital in Workby, which resulted in fewer cases even if the UltraClean is not better than other soaps. Second, there are many other alternative explanations for fewer cases in Workby, such as better sanitization process for medical workers, cleaner environment, and superior anti-infection drugs. If these factors are the true reasons why there are fewer cases of infection in the hospital in Workby, then providing UltraClean will not prevent serious infection from happening.
Even if the aforementioned studies are representative and valid, the indication that 40% of bacteria are reduced is vague. What kinds of bacteria are reduced? Are the bacteria reduced the primary cause of infection? If the bacteria reduced in these studies are actually innocuous or even beneficial to human body, then the argument in the prompt will be invalidated.
In conclusion, with these unwarranted assumptions and flawed evidence, the argument fails to justify that we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system to prevent serious patient infection.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 424 350
No. of Characters: 2194 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.538 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.175 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.968 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 398, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun patients is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...centages. It is possible that there are less patients in the hospital in Workby, whi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, second, so, then, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2255.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 424.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31839622642 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85316830475 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.455188679245 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7341567571 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.684210526 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3157894737 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.238537266546 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805541879878 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083277835494 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127523914049 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0576713787245 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.