"In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system."
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.
In the memo from the director of a large group of hospitals, it’s presented that the hospitals should be provided with the new antibacterial hand soap in order to decrease the infection rate among patients. The suggestion is based on the preveious academic research and the subsequent test in Workby hospital that showed the efficiency of a new soap. However, before this recommendation can be implemented the following three assumption must be deliberately analyzed.
The first assumption is that the reduction of contagion cases in the Workby hospital was solely due to the new antibacterial soap. It is possible that the decreasing number of infections in a Workby hospital was caused by other factors. For instance,recently the novel protocol was introduced by hospital management which allowed doctors to interact with patients in a confined amount of time. Subsequently reducing chance of getting doctors sick and restricting further transfer of infection to other patients. Another conspicious influential factor could be implementation of the new personal protective equipment, consequently modern ppe proven to be more efficient than old ones and the new ppe could be a reason for the reducing numbers of infections in Workby hospital. If either of these scenarios will be proven, than the concluson is flawed.
The second assumption is that the effects of changing to the new antibacterial soap would be the same as in Workby hospital for all other hospitals from the group. The governing management prematurely assume that output from the suggestion would be the same in other hospital. Perhaps other hospitals have different profile of their treatment. For example, one hospitals’ primery patients are the ones with heart diseases another hospital is dedicated to treat people with cancer. So the change in type of antibacterial soap that the hospital uses would have no viable consequences. It would be only waste of money and subsequent reduction of profits.
The third assumption is that the laboratory study is flawless and unbiased. There is the possibility that the research studies could be falsified in order to favor producing company. As usually this kind of researches are funded by the private companies and their paramount goal in funding such research is to achieve plausible resuts. Thus, if it’s the case in which manufacturing enterprise are supplementing the researchers, then probably the laboratory results are apocryphal. Subsequently, the recommendation is flawed because UltraClean soap is the sham product.
In conclusion, the argument is considerably flawed due to its reliance on the unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to prove viability of their assumptions, through providing new evidence then it will be possible to execute the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Some issues with the argument three.
-----------------------------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2322 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.301 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.044 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.639 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.502 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 427, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'assumption' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'assumptions'.
Suggestion: assumptions
... can be implemented the following three assumption must be deliberately analyzed. The f...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 250, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , recently
...as caused by other factors. For instance,recently the novel protocol was introduced by ho...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 395, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Subsequently,
... patients in a confined amount of time. Subsequently reducing chance of getting doctors sick...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 822, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...ther of these scenarios will be proven, than the concluson is flawed. The second ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 89, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y is flawless and unbiased. There is the possibility that the research studies co...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2380.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44622425629 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17430650618 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505720823799 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.7186870668 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.181818182 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8636363636 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.18181818182 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161476039538 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526570346942 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0490269138977 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0866988769407 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0485921109877 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.