The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
“In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection 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 throughout our hospital system."
The director of a group of hospitals avers that a specialized UltraClean produced to reduce bacteria population on hands, basing on a study and a test, which two are tenuous and rife with holes, thus making the primitive argument vulnerable in logic. While few mistakes could be seen from the words mentioned in the passage directly, the underlying assumptions are incomplete and there are extra explanations challenging the author's idea. So if the director manages to make such argument robust, more evidence should be cited.
Firstly, the author begins with a statement that the study conducted in a laboratory shows that UltraClean could remove nearly 40% more bacteria than does normal hand soap. Assumption behind such argument is it could readily say that the veracious situation has nothing nuances existing outside the laboratory. Here, the author fails to persuade people to believe that premise in that no data or information are given. On condition that there are some other bacteria in the real hospital air vilifying the strong cleaning ability, words from the director could not hold water. Hence, to render a convincement for that argument, the writer should notice the difference between laboratory and real world. In addition to the flaw of disparate environment, the effectiveness of the study also lacks firm position. The first vague side is its sample size, how many times did such super concentrated solution overmount the original one? If the overmounting rate reaches 80% or above, it might be seen as a worthy fungible production. However, no such statistics are presented, leaving a large hole easily challenged by skeptics. And the second aspect, relating to the details of the study, is the situation that before cleaned by those two productions the same? Even only one of possibilities as mentioned before happens, the argument could be strongly punished.
Secondly, what is discussing now is another result of a test, a flawed deduction resulted from a parochial test, which indicates that the fewer infection cases reported in hospital of Workby is merely the effect of the implement of UltraClean. On the one hand, it might be true when Workby hospital is somewhere maintaining higher infection rate before the innovation. But we do not see if that is the case. So on the other hand, if that hospital primitively had very low rate of infection, which is hard to differentiate the division before and after using UltraClean, it confounds author's opinion. Thus, the director should contain more data, raging from the past to current, to espouse his own position.
Finally, the director's suggestion is a consequence of his last argument, a flawed deduction using single situation in Workby to represent for the whole group of hospitals. Such argument makes a wide conclusion based on tiny case. First, such argument has already stood on a false base, how correct could we expect it to has? Second, while we pretend to acknowledge the director's argument, it is unreasonable to expand its use to all hospitals, since the primitive hand washing liquid is reaching standards and the cost of the change is too huge for the group. So it should be implemented in infection sectors and hospitals under greater patients pressure. An the third is that, what if there are any side-effects within that solution hamstringing patients' organisms in the long run that is hardy to observed at a glance?
In a nutshell, the argument as the author stands in the passage is flawed due to the considerable paucity of solid evidence and several pieces of wishy-washy findings that are inaccurate. The director should indicate more statistics and basic information concerning UltraClean in the passage.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 605 350
No. of Characters: 3038 1500
No. of Different Words: 311 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.96 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.021 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.78 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 172 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 138 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.407 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.732 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.704 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.256 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.435 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 166, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing on a study and a test, which two are tenuous and rife with holes, thus making...
^^
Line 1, column 427, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... are extra explanations challenging the authors idea. So if the director manages to mak...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...robust, more evidence should be cited. Firstly, the author begins with a statem...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e argument could be strongly punished. Secondly, what is discussing now is anot...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... current, to espouse his own position. Finally, the directors suggestion is a c...
^^^
Line 7, column 14, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...ouse his own position. Finally, the directors suggestion is a consequence of his last...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 370, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...nd, while we pretend to acknowledge the directors argument, it is unreasonable to expand ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 657, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'A' instead of 'An' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: A
...pitals under greater patients pressure. An the third is that, what if there are an...
^^
Line 7, column 657, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'An' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: An; The
...pitals under greater patients pressure. An the third is that, what if there are any si...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat is hardy to observed at a glance? In a nutshell, the argument as the autho...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thus, while, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 40.0 16.3942115768 244% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3116.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 605.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15041322314 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95951083803 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83534436212 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 319.0 204.123752495 156% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527272727273 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 990.0 705.55239521 140% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3344392889 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.407407407 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4074074074 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.74074074074 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.208636468081 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046239075051 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524692171401 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106268482585 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0408059109267 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 169.0 98.500998004 172% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.