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."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to 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 author recommends supply UltraClean for all stations through their hosptial system and predicts such approach could efficiently prevent serious patient infections. To support his/her claim, the author cites both a controlled laboratory study relevant with UltraClean and a recent test for a regular-strength UltraClean in Worktown. Quite convincing though such recommendation appears, the author's recommendation might be unconvincing due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if prove unwarranted, will heavily challenge the author's conclusion.

To start off, the author's recommendation heavily relies on the assumption that the normal version of UltraClean could also surpass hard soap in the performance of bacteria reduction effects. However, this assumption might be potentially problematic because the controlled laboratory study only compare performance between the concentrated version of UltraClean and liquid hand soaps. Nor do we know that how difference exists between concentrated version and normal version of UltraClean for their disinfect effect of bacteria. In addition, none information was given for detailed comparison between the normal UltraClean and the liquid hand soap used currently. If additional information shows that normal UltraClean couldn't match with expectation for either concentrated version or liquid hand soap, this recommendation to simply replace liquid soap with UltraClean regardless of detailed versions will fall into a great doubt and the author's statement will be weakened.

Furthermore, by stating that the trail in Worktown has gained a significant success of suppression of patient infection, the author implies the assumption that such success could easily be applied for and spreaded to other hosipitals in their system. However, without additional information to evaluate whether Worktown could represent the average situation of the remaining hosptals, we have no clues whether such application could actually work as expected. It is likely that the success of infection reduction in Worktown is attributed to the high quality of their employees. And it is of equal probability that in Worktown they only have a very limited patient and a simple improvement of infection avoidance could bring about huge improvement on result. If any of those probabilities prove true, the author's statement about leaveage the Worktown's success of using UltraClean will become untenable and therefore his/her argument might be rendered less advisable.

Last but not least, even if all the aforementioned assumptions prove valid, the author's recommendation might be still unnecessary due to the assumption regarding the efficenicy of UltraClean on serious patient infections. It is unreasonable to assume that UltraClean, which mainly focus on prevention of bacteria, could also work well on the illnesses that are caused by other reasons, such as parasites or fungals. Here, we can clearly see that the author hastily comes to conclustion that UltraClean could suppress all of serious patient infections, but doesn discuss with diversity of illness causes and the probability that how UltraClean could work for infections apart from its eessential usage, bacteria prevention. If UltraClean could only fight with disease caused by baterica or it only has limited effect on other infections, his/her recommendation would lose more weights.

In summary, whether we implement the author's recommendation actually depends on the validity of the aforementioned assumptions. If those assumptions prove unwarranted, the author's suggestion would become little more than his/her wistful thinking and therefore we have to resort to other solutions for the stated purpose.

Votes
Average: 8.2 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...though such recommendation appears, the authors recommendation might be unconvincing du...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 552, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...unwarranted, will heavily challenge the authors conclusion. To start off, the auth...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hors conclusion. To start off, the authors recommendation heavily relies on the as...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 719, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...nformation shows that normal UltraClean couldnt match with expectation for either conce...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 938, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ns will fall into a great doubt and the authors statement will be weakened. Furthe...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 806, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... of those probabilities prove true, the authors statement about leaveage the Worktowns ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 880, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he Worktowns success of using UltraClean will become untenable and therefore his/...
^^
Line 13, column 81, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ementioned assumptions prove valid, the authors recommendation might be still unnecessa...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 38, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... In summary, whether we implement the authors recommendation actually depends on the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 173, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hose assumptions prove unwarranted, the authors suggestion would become little more tha...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, however, if, regarding, so, still, therefore, well, apart from, in addition, in summary, such as

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 37.0 16.3942115768 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3194.0 2260.96107784 141% => OK
No of words: 547.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83912248629 5.12650576532 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14228914383 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480804387569 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 958.5 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.9881850417 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.105263158 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7894736842 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84210526316 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131240764432 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0493551501803 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0592882509228 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0709231987137 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0683693254802 0.0628817314937 109% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.5 14.3799401198 143% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.14 48.3550499002 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.197005988 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.18 12.5979740519 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => 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: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 552 350
No. of Characters: 3131 1500
No. of Different Words: 258 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.847 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.672 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.102 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 247 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 208 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 151 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 111 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.647 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.593 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.213 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5