In a memo from a large group of hospitals, the author asserts that ultraclean is more suitable to use than liquid hand soaps. He gives this assertion based upon the results of laboratory study and from the records of the hospital that shows fewer patients reported after the application of the ultraclean. Outwardly, the author's recommendation seems plausible, however, upon close scrutiny, it is based upon the several stated and unstated assumptions. For, the better evaluation of the given arguments, the authors must considered the following things.
First of all, the author state that ultraclean is more effective than liquid antibacterial hands soaps. He belives that laboratory study is good so that result is reliable, however, it might be possible that, the laboratory analysis of the ultraclean is wrong and carried out slovenly. If the laboratory procedure were wrong then the recommendation might be weaken. The author need to consider the laboratory analysis method. Furthermore, it might be possible that, the lultraclean was tested with only litmited number of the bacteria and is effective for the limited rage of the bacteria and is not effective for all the bacteria.
Secondly, the hastily gave his recommendation that ultraclean based upon the report of the hospital which shows that number of patients were lower who use ultraclean than those who did not use ultraclean. It is necessary to mentions the possible alternative explanation such as lower in the number of the patients reported infection is may be due to the more frequent use of the ultraclean than the liquid antibacterial sopas. Furthermore, the authors must examined the realibility of the report, as it might be possible that the report is flawed and do not contain factual ingformation.
Last but not least, authors assumes that it is effective for all the hospitals as it is effective in his hospital. Howeverm it might be possible that it is effective in one area may not be effective in the others areas, as the availability of the bacteria in different location if different so that there is a chance that new bacteria in the new environment and are resistant to the ultraclea so that number of the new patients may increased in the others hospitals.
In conclusion, the recommendation to adopt ultraclean over antibacterial soap is flawed as it depends upon several unstated assumptions. So, for better evaluation of the given arguments the author needs to provide more concrete evidence( based upon systematic scientific study) so that the reliabily of the given arguments can be increased.
Essay evaluation report
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2125 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.06 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.913 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.512 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.37 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 322, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ation of the ultraclean. Outwardly, the authors recommendation seems plausible, however...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 376, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...endation seems plausible, however, upon close scrutiny, it is based upon the several stated an...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 286, 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.
...lean is wrong and carried out slovenly. If the laboratory procedure were wrong the...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2170.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16666666667 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99262131131 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.414285714286 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 699.3 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.1767005655 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.625 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.25 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.25 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.19548698036 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754230384842 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821129964045 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109317552257 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562154575783 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.