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.
The argument is flawed due to the assumptions of correlation implying causation and unscientific test methods employed in arriving at results.
The study assumes the viability of the concentrated solution used for human use. One can argue that the commercially available solution is at its maximum potency without being harmful to the users' skin. Further increase in the concentration of the solution could be potentially harmful to users with sensitive skin. The study also does not mention the type of bacteria on which the solution was tested. With the biodiversity in the microbial class, a product that works on one subset of bacteria may not be as effective against other subsets. Had the study mentioned the types of bacteria the product was tested on with concentrations used in real-world applications, it would be more credible.
The trial period of the regular strength version was carried out at one location and is not indicative of results one can expect over all hospitals. The conditions of the trial do not mention the period or the test subjects in detail. The 20% drop in infections can be alluded to a variety of factors apart from the use of UltraClean. It could be likely that the study period was shorter than the duration of stay of the patients at the hte hospital. With post-surgical infections taking anywhere from 2-7 days to show up, the number of infections with delayed effects might not have been accounted for during the trial.
Should the change to UltraClean be made, it is quite likely that a significant change will not be seen due to the unfounded claims by studies and limited trail periods. Further testing in a variety of locations with control subjects to test the effectiveness of UltraClean will provide a definitive answer as to the effectiveness of UltraClean. A premature move to UltraClean could pose a significant financial penalty due to the scale of the operation involved in phasing the current soap out of the hospital system.
The faulty assumptions mentioned above prove that the results of the studies performed are not to be taken at face value and are to be evaluated further before a decision is made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 236, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... period or the test subjects in detail. The 20% drop in infections can be alluded t...
^^^
Line 8, column 170, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...s by studies and limited trail periods. Further testing in a variety of locations with ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'apart from', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.265625 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.153645833333 0.15541462614 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0859375 0.0836205057962 103% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0390625 0.0520304965353 75% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0104166666667 0.0272364105082 38% => OK
Prepositions: 0.158854166667 0.125424944231 127% => OK
Participles: 0.0598958333333 0.0416121511921 144% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.8660572374 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0338541666667 0.026700313972 127% => OK
Particles: 0.00520833333333 0.001811407834 288% => OK
Determiners: 0.1328125 0.113004496875 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.03125 0.0255425247493 122% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00520833333333 0.0127820249294 41% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2179.0 2731.13054187 80% => OK
No of words: 363.0 446.07635468 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.00275482094 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.363636363636 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.305785123967 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.198347107438 0.208842608468 95% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.129476584022 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8660572374 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.509641873278 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 54.4393710023 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 22.6875 23.2022227129 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.0408187879 57.7814097925 59% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.1875 141.986410481 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6875 23.2022227129 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.375 0.724660767414 52% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 53.2660123967 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 2.38461538462 1.8405768891 130% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37389891251 0.441005458295 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140789865075 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0657982061356 0.0829849096947 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.697159322757 0.58762219726 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127086897106 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.204295757102 0.193483328276 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0738370130171 0.0970749176394 76% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.461052277402 0.42659136922 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.125573674435 0.0774707102158 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250142089926 0.312017818177 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0870547583459 0.0698173142475 125% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.