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 our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (20 percent reduction) than did any of the other hospitals in our group. The explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap.”
At first glance, the argument seems reasonable that UltraClean hand soap is more effective than the liquid hand soap. UltraClean hand soap results in decrease of harmful bacteria by 40 percent than the liquid hand soap. Therefore, the director of a large group of hospitals states in the memo that the UltraClean hand soap helps in lowering the patient infection by 20 percent, but there are several alternative explanations to this argument.
One alternative explanation concerns the UltraClean hand soap which according to the director of the hospital assumes that concentrated solution of UltraClean hand soap helps in cleaning the harmful bacteria more effectively than the liquid hand soap. There are several plausible explanations. For one, it might be some other ingredient or chemical in the hand soap which helps in getting rid of the harmful bacteria. It is possible that UltraClean hand soap manufacturers just used the common terms concentrated or dilute solution to explain their products to the hospital management. Another explanation is that UltraClean hand soap manufacturers might have provided the professional Janitor to the hospital in order to launch its new product in the market.
Another possible explanation involves the hospital. The director of the hospital claims that the hospital reported 20 percent decrease in patient infection compared to the other hospitals in their group. There are many possible explanations. First, it seems hospital might have got new management and their main focus might be to keep the hospital clean 24 *7. If the hospital is maintained properly in terms of hygiene, automatically there would be less chances of infection. Secondly, hospital might have given the cleanliness contract to the third-party vendor and they might be monitoring it properly. It could be possible that they might have changed their mission and wanted to become no. 1 hospital in town.
The lack of substantiated data on the study of liquid hand soaps causes serious flaws in the argument itself. There was no source of the study. We don’t know who conducted the study. It might be the UltraClean hand soap company did the study to know the effectiveness of their product. In such scenario, they concluded with their desired result without considering other factors. There is no representative sample mentioned in the study. Furthermore, the statement doesn’t describe the date of studies. They haven’t mentioned whether they have compared ward to ward of the hospitals. It’s not at all clear from the argument which kind of hospitals have been considered for study. Perhaps, they did the study when the hospital didn’t have sufficient inpatients.
In conclusion, there were several plausible explanations to this argument. The author made flaws in the argument regarding UltraClean hand soap, hospital and the evidence. It is very unlikely to conclude that the UltraClean hand soap helps in lowering the patient infections by 20 percent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
At first glance, the argument seems reas...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ative explanations to this argument. One alternative explanation concerns the...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...unch its new product in the market. Another possible explanation involves th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 316, Rule ID: MAIN_FOCUS[1]
Message: Use simply 'focus'.
Suggestion: focus
...might have got new management and their main focus might be to keep the hospital clean 24 ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 459, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun chances is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...f hygiene, automatically there would be less chances of infection. Secondly, hospita...
^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to become no. 1 hospital in town. The lack of substantiated data on the st...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n't have sufficient inpatients. In conclusion, there were several plausi...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38559322034 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92287816169 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444915254237 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 765.0 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.777774301 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.6551724138 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.275862069 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.51724137931 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260343501817 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0737963259996 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0969187762153 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178857044092 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117447564192 0.0628817314937 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => 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.