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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In this memo, it is concluded that UltraClean concentrated hand soap should be used by everyone in the Worktown hospital because it has shown to be effective in a laboratory experiment and a lower rate of infection was experienced while usning the normal version of the product. However, this conclusion cannot be drawn from the provided information and following pieces of evidence should be provided in order to validate this claim.
First, it should be evidenced that the culture of bacteria used in the laboratory study was the same as those found in the hospitals and medical facilities. It is possible that this experiment was conducted only on a specific strain of bacteria and hence, it might be not as effective on other strains. Also, it might be the case that the ratio of the diferent strains of bacteria present in the study is significantly different from that of real world. In this case, the real-world outcome might be extremely different from the results observerved in the laboratory. If any of these are true, this argument is flawed.
Furher, a piece of evidences should be provided to indicate that the concentrated version of the product is at least as effective as the regular-strength kind. Maybe, in the process of concentration of the product a specific ingredient has been added which minimizes the sanitizing efects of the product. Maybe this concentrated product does not dissolve in water as easily as the old normal-strength product and hence, most of the liquid is wasted, reducing the overal cleaning effects. In any of these scenarios, the conclusion advising the use of this concentrated UltraClean liquid cannot be drawn.
Moreover, empirical data should be provided evidencing that use of this product is not harmful to anyone. As this liquid is to be used by everone in the hospital, including visitors, it should be cleared that it has no deletorious effects on the human body. It is possible that this antibacterial liquid kills the beneficial strains of the bacteria as well. Or that it causes extreme irritation and adverse allergic responses in some people. Also, like many other antibacterial solutions, it might result in strenghing the pernicious strains of bacteria in the long run. In these cases, the argument does not hold water.
All in all, the current argument, without any additional data and pieces of evidence, is extremely flawed. However, if evidence regarding the bacteria tested in the laboratory, effectiveness of the concentrated version comparing to the normal product, and the possible adverse reactions of the product is provided, a valid evaluation of this argument is possible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 432 350
No. of Characters: 2166 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.559 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.922 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.083 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In this memo, it is concluded that Ultra...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ided in order to validate this claim. First, it should be evidenced that the c...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...se are true, this argument is flawed. Furher, a piece of evidences should be p...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed UltraClean liquid cannot be drawn. Moreover, empirical data should be provi...
^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es, the argument does not hold water. All in all, the current argument, withou...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, well, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2222.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 432.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14351851852 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97762215712 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449074074074 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 709.2 705.55239521 101% => 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: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4460372803 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.947368421 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7368421053 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.42105263158 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.0937217125977 0.218282227539 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0318773593971 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0327405927384 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0579404073842 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0363911976503 0.0628817314937 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.