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

Essay topics:

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."

In this argument, the author urged to consider that it is better to use the UltraClean hand soap rather than the other liquid hand wash soap to reduce the cases of infection within the hospital premises. To support this recommendation, he cited that there has been the 40 percent decrease in infection cases of staff and patient visiting the hospital. While most people agree to this I, however, find this argument unconvincing and will be stating most conspicuous reasons to rear my standpoints.
First, the author states that the decrease in infection is due to the fact that staff and patients are using the UltraClean hand soap. This claim cannot be accepted as it stands. It is entirely possible to assume that the majority of the infection comes from outside the hospital which can be contagious via patients and visitors. Also, there is nothing written about the location of the hospital as it is possible that it may be situated near highways or any building construction area due to which the dust particles along with pathogens find their way penetrating inside of the hospital. The suggested solution of using UltraClean hand soap can help in disinfecting the patients and the staff using within the hospital premises but hospital administration has no control of the bacterias and viruses coming from the outside of the hospital area. while the brief statement of using the suggested UltraClean hand soap seems to be the robust idea, however, it deficit between what is states and what there is too evident for it and is too large to be overlooked. This ultimately cases a week argument that will count against the authors' conclusion.
Second, according to the report, there has bee 20 percent in the cases of infection after using the UltraClean hand soap. Here, correlation does not prove causation. The reduction of infection is not directly proportional to the use of UltraClean hand soap but rather many other factors come into play. For instance, the proper floor sanitization on regular intervals with the right kind of floor cleaner, removal of hospital wastage from dustbins and also the from the cafeteria. The installation of air purifiers within the hospital premises also plays a vital role in maintaining the proper sanitization in reducing the chances of infection among the hospital staff and patients. Therefore, this assumption is unwarranted and lacks compelling reasons to convince the author's proposal.
Third, the author hypothesized that the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection after using UltraClean hand soap. This assumption seems to be overgeneralized. It is also possible that the patients visiting during the test timings contained lesser infectious pathogens than the other times. Also, the hospital might have been biased in showing the correct results as it can question the hospital reputation which eventually decreases the hospital revenue. Thus the careful perusing the evidence in the argument reveals that too many questions have been left unanswered.
In conclusion, this is not the strong argument and to bolster it the author must at very at least provide the concrete evidence regarding the source of the pathogens in the hospital, perhaps by the extensive and unbiased testing, which will strengthen the author's claim.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 850, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: While
... from the outside of the hospital area. while the brief statement of using the sugges...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1130, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ek argument that will count against the authors conclusion. Second, according to the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[3]
Message: Did you mean 'form'?
Suggestion: form
...ital wastage from dustbins and also the from the cafeteria. The installation of air ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 771, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...acks compelling reasons to convince the authors proposal. Third, the author hypothesiz...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 480, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ntually decreases the hospital revenue. Thus the careful perusing the evidence in th...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, while, at least, for instance, in conclusion, kind of

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2778.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21200750469 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78223429969 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459662288931 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 849.6 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => 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: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.5744653114 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.272727273 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2272727273 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.72727272727 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133564558157 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447517996363 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576667006506 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0767636502394 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0476270466874 0.0628817314937 76% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2727 1500
No. of Different Words: 244 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.116 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.718 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.381 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.978 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.317 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5