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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sureto explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In this memo, the statement argues about utilizing the extra resistant ultra clean hand soap in hospitals to halt the distribution of fatal diseases. To endorse this thesis, the articles author emphasizes on three postulations: 1) alleviation of deleterious bacteria among the persons in special sections of hospitals, 2) extenuating of infections and the last but not least reduction of lethal illness among patients. Close scrutiny each of the facts divulges no plausible support to this recommendation.
Nor does the mere fact that the implementing the extravagant strength ultraclean hand soap can be accessible for all hospitals. In fact, there exist the issue of financial restrictions for hospitals to purchase these novel hand soaps, since most of the time the appearance of new technology requires a plethora of currency to demonstrate its usefulness for users. Thus, the allegations about exploitation of this new one in lieu of the previous case still needs more investigation in meeting the sufficient budget. To shed more light, the more the financial problems is sitting on the hospitals’ shoulders, the less tendency of doctors to purchase these types of soaps. Here the role of appropriate cost can be comprehended.
Even evidence that these new kinds of hand soups can mitigate the number of bacteria does not seem totally credible. Because, there are a wide variety types of bacteria which are resistant to many sundry cases, and these ones may can have the potential of demolishing the specific types not all. Based on this explanation, yet the memo contains no precise information about what kinds of bacteria are scrutinized to justify this presumption. Thus, after recognizing the types of bacteria, it can be concluded that these new ones can be impermeable to those bacteria or not. Rarely do these soaps manifest the high yield without knowing their extent of their strength.
The interpretation of statement about smothering the inclement diseases with the means of these new soaps also does not sound reasonable. As a matter of the fact, the extent of the severity of diseases has not been revealed conspicuously, hence, the privileges of these soaps cannot be substantiated completely. Additionally, that the amount of spreading the infection among the special sections in one hospital may be impressed by other factors such as elevating the personal hygiene or lifting the situation of amenities and equipment to reduce the prevalence of spreading contiguous illnesses. As a result, the subsistence of other factors is underestimated by the author about supplanting these disease-resistant ultraclean instead of the current ones.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore untenable as it stands. To bolster the hypothesis, the writer must deem the types of adverse bacteria and the degree of resistance of them to these new soaps, as well as , the significance of inhibit cost of entering these new technologies should be regarded. Ultimately, it is critically essential to determine the severity of infections to provide the sufficient strength soaps to stifle the distribution of lethal illnesses.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 364, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'not the least'.
Suggestion: not the least
...enuating of infections and the last but not least reduction of lethal illness among patie...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 418, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
...ction of lethal illness among patients. Close scrutiny each of the facts divulges no plausible...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 216, Rule ID: THESE_ONES[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'these' instead.
Suggestion: these
...are resistant to many sundry cases, and these ones may can have the potential of demolishi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 225, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e of them to these new soaps, as well as , the significance of inhibit cost of ent...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, well, in fact, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2677.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31150793651 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11978296999 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 204.123752495 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537698412698 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.1362082377 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.476190476 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.0874678159194 0.218282227539 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0265384393957 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0339127175072 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0521324284043 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.032796715218 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.56 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.