The author of this argument states that because of significantly reduced cases of patient infection in hospitals using UltraClean, then UltraClean should be used at all hand-washing stations at all hospitals. The premise of this argument is not completely cogent from a logical standpoint because it fails to address 3 questions that are critical to the understanding and validity of the statement presented.
First, the author states that the hospital in Workby has significantly fewer cases of patient infection than other hospitals because they use UltraClean. However, we cannot assume that is the sole reason. There are many other factors that can play into this conclusion. For one, the hospital in Workby could be a newer, smaller facility with an overflow of cleaning staff. This would be mean the hospital would be especially cleaner than other hospitals around which could be older and understaffed. If this assumption proves unwarranted, using UltraClean at other hospitals will not yield the same results.
Furthermore, the argument states that there was a 40% greater reduction in bacteria population than liquid hand soaps currently used at other hospitals. The author does not provide any statistical data to back this claim. For example, lets say that liquid hand soaps currently used at hospitals are able to eliminate 99.99% of bacteria. Therefore UltraClean will be able to eliminate 40% more than 99.99, which is a miniscule amount. Without any other data, the effectiveness of UltraClean and any other hand soap will be exactly the same.
Finally, the speaker fails to provide any justification that the hospital in Workby is similar to other hospitals, in terms of their respective patients. For one, the patients near Workby may be known for their outstanding work in rehabilitation from an injury while other hospitals may be known for their skills in fighting infection and diseases. This important difference could explain the success of UltraClean in preventing patient infections, but might not necessarily work in other hospitals.
By answering these vital questions, the argument could garner a stronger basis for reasoning. Without this information, the argument fails to make a convincing case that UltraClean will provide any real benefits when used at other hospitals.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 362 350
No. of Characters: 1900 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.362 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.249 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.806 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.649 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...e able to eliminate 99.99% of bacteria. Therefore UltraClean will be able to eliminate 40...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1955.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 362.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40055248619 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36191444098 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89429079443 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9157304238 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.611111111 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1111111111 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05555555556 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111766394321 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0431316319879 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0574587308637 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0685622094237 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502520468174 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.