In a lab study of 2 different industrial cleansers, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Furthermore, a study showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick days than employees working at buildings cleaned with other cleansers. Therefore, to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as their industrial cleanser.
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 above arguments is flawed for numerous reasons, initially the CleanAll cleanser is compared with other cleanser without any details about what types of bacterias it would kill. The assumption also states that the employees use fewer sick days leave where CleanAll cleanser is used without providing any details about the medical conditions of employees.
The argument fails to provide the details about what types of dirt and bacteria they remove, maybe it only removes a certain type of bacteria in a large number comparatively to other cleansers. Maybe the number of percentage it mentioned would be by considering only those types of bacteria which they are good with vanishing. The percentage for other bacterias and dirt would be less than what is expected and those of other cleansers would be good. If the argument would have mentioned the details about its best effects on what type of bacterias it would have been considered a warranted assumption.
The argument also mentioned an unwarranted assumption about the buildings in which cleansers are used. Had only been the argument provided with the details about its effects on, it would still be considered as unwarranted because of the assumptions of cleaning of buildings. Maybe the buildings using CleanAll cleansers are located in a safe and unpolluted area where there is less risk of getting sick. Maybe the comparison is made with the building which is located in a dull area besides the dumpyard and a polluted area. Maybe the employees are sick because of the environment they are working and not because of the cleansers. If the argument would have been mentioned about how the comparisons have been made it would have been easier to state the argument is valid.
Finally, the argument also fails to provide the details about the health nature of the employees those living in building cleaned with CleanAll and others. The employees In CleanAll using buildings maybe young and new and fit. Whereas, those living in buildings using other cleansers maybe old and not that fit. This could be the main reason behind the illness of the employees.The details of the locality and comparisons would not be sufficient for the argument to be warranted. The employees health details are also required.
Therefore, the argument fails to serve the unwarranted assumptions and thus it does not allow the CleanAll cleansers to be used in every buildings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, 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.
...the medical conditions of employees. The argument fails to provide the details a...
^^^
Line 3, column 452, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...those of other cleansers would be good. If the argument would have mentioned the d...
^^
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had mentioned'?
Suggestion: had mentioned
...leansers would be good. If the argument would have mentioned the details about its best effects on w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 526, 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.
...sides the dumpyard and a polluted area. Maybe the employees are sick because of the e...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 633, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...rking and not because of the cleansers. If the argument would have been mentioned ...
^^
Line 5, column 649, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had been'?
Suggestion: had been
...cause of the cleansers. If the argument would have been mentioned about how the comparisons hav...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 379, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...son behind the illness of the employees.The details of the locality and comparisons...
^^^
Line 7, column 485, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
...t for the argument to be warranted. The employees health details are also required. T...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'finally', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'whereas']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.230403800475 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.180522565321 0.15541462614 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.083135391924 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0570071258907 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0285035629454 0.0272364105082 105% => OK
Prepositions: 0.133016627078 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0760095011876 0.0416121511921 183% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.65099439017 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0166270783848 0.026700313972 62% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.133016627078 0.113004496875 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0261282660333 0.0255425247493 102% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0237529691211 0.0127820249294 186% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2422.0 2731.13054187 89% => OK
No of words: 397.0 446.07635468 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.10075566751 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.332493702771 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299748110831 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.226700251889 0.208842608468 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.141057934509 0.135150697306 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65099439017 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 207.018472906 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.382871536524 0.469332199767 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 40.215101533 52.1807786196 77% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0555555556 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7741163505 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.555555556 141.986410481 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0555555556 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 52.0303666387 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.65178571429 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261383136573 0.441005458295 59% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.189938266036 0.135418324435 140% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.10933096685 0.0829849096947 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.635302182319 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146836240959 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130619892476 0.193483328276 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503803035557 0.0970749176394 52% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.489292715691 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.106404940517 0.0774707102158 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194121968069 0.312017818177 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0217298340265 0.0698173142475 31% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.