The director of a large group of hospitals concluded in a memo that in order to prevent serious patient infections they should supply a new concentrated solution of UltraClean at all hand-washing stations. To support his argument, he pointed out that UltraClean is more effective at bacteria population reduction. Moreover, his conclusion relies on a test made at the hospital in Workby that proved the advantages of the above-mentioned soap. However, the scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is based upon a series of assumptions. Unless those assumptions are tested and proved valid, the argument is unpersuasive as it is.
First of all, the argument relies on a faulty assumption that the hospital in Workby started having fewer cases of patient infection with the usage of Ultra clean soap. However, this assumption is quite flimsy. In fact, it can be the case that it has always been this way and simply has never been analyzed and, therefore, the results were never recorded. Moreover, there are other factors involved which could affect the obtained results of the test. Firstly, the safety policy at the above-mentioned hospital might be much stricter or there can be more stickers and posters reminding patients and doctors to wash their hands. Secondly, patient infections can be a result of food used, the cleanness of the medical equipment and the place itself. Therefore, more information about the Workby hospital is required in order to evaluate the argument.
Secondly, the director concludes that suppling UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout their hospital system will help to prevent serious infections. Nevertheless, we are not given any information about the qualities of the above-mentioned soap - there are no details about what it is made of, what bacteria it is most effective with, what infection it is likely to prevent and so on. What is more, it is entirely possible that although UltraClean is highly effective when it comes to the bacteria population reduction, it is also toxic or dangerous for people’s skin or health overall. Perhaps, the high concentration of a certain element in the solution can prove to be damaging in the long run. Since there is no study or research provided about the pros and cons of the soap, no recommendation cannot be made unless we know all possible consequences of its usage.
In the final analysis, the argument of the director is unconvincing as it stands, since it is based on a series of faulty assumptions. Hence, it is impossible to evaluate the argument correctly without the clarification of the above-named facts.
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: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2132 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.916 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.267 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.478 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 531, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...es to the bacteria population reduction, it is also toxic or dangerous for people...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, in fact, first of all, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2194.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15023474178 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00110311409 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504694835681 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0243056149 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.473684211 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4210526316 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05263157895 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0972899775479 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0294787765882 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484893784009 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0609870740835 0.128457276422 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524101887532 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => 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: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.