In the preceding argument, the author states that they ought to supply Ultraclean hand washing to all hospital system, the conclusion of the argument is based on the following premises. Firstly, he states a study indicates that using this hand washing produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than the liquid hand soaps. Secondly he boosts his case by stating that there is a hospital used UltraClean and reported fewer cases of patient infection. Therefore, in the first glance it may seem plausible. However, careful scrutiny sheds light on plethora of assumption that could undermine the value of the argument.
To begin with, the author readily states a laboratory study of liquid hand soaps and UltraClean hand soaps. In deed, several factors are elusive and intractable such as, what type of this study, is it representative enough to draw a conclusion? Plus, is the lab result precise enough. Perhaps the lab is not specialized or perhaps does not has tools to reflect the real condition. Further, what is the criteria they used to conclude this assumption. Thus, all these factors play a major role to extrapolate the results and in order to bolster his case he has to provide more information about the laboratory study.
Furthermore, even there is a positive relation between using UltraClean and reduction the bacteria population to 40 percent does not necessarily indicate a conspicuous relation between the two events. In other words, from where he conclude this result and how strong relation is. Perhaps the 40 percent reduction is not significant because we do not have any information about the real infection number to deiced is it good reduction or not. Or it might be the washing methods are different some of them are washing their hands in right way while another they do not. In deed, building a decision depends on weak causation is not plausible and he has to present a real numbers that reflect the past and the present status.
Thirdly, the fallacy of the argument also lies in assuming that what hold true in one hospital will hold true with the other hospitals. In fact, he fails to state this assumption because the report did not mention any details about this hospital perhaps they are using another materials to prevent their patients infection or perhaps they are teaching their patients how to wash hands or they have a strong infection control system. Hence, the assumption lack a depth of details that undermine the value of the argument and he has to explain and analysis the real situation to reflect and generalize the success.
All in all, the argument fails to provide one key factor. Namely, the all the previous assumptions are equivocal. Thus, without complete information the argument is unsubstantiated and opened to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 341, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'have'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: have
... is not specialized or perhaps does not has tools to reflect the real condition. Fu...
^^^
Line 3, column 341, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
... is not specialized or perhaps does not has tools to reflect the real condition. Fu...
^^^
Line 5, column 232, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'concludes'.
Suggestion: concludes
...o events. In other words, from where he conclude this result and how strong relation is....
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, while, as to, in fact, such as, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2346.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03433476395 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6875932627 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476394849785 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 726.3 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0900699241 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.636363636 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1818181818 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146926920733 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0414295322344 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0739215788396 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0781170984051 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0615707113725 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.