In a laboratory study of two 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 in 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.
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as their industrial cleanser. There are two studies cited as the reason for the conclusion. However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. We need to analyze alternate hypothesis and eliminate them, so that the current conclusion remains valid. The argument could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid. In order to make that determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn.
The main idea here is to find the best cleanser in the market to maintain utmost hygiene possible in the workplace in order to prevent employee illness. The first study for this purpose where one industrial cleanser is compared against CleanAll is very vague to draw inferences from. Firstly, we need to know on what criteria the two industrial cleansers were chosen for testing. Were they the among the best cleansers available in the market? Or were they chosen randomly and tested? Assuming that the cleansers claiming to be the best in the market were chosen to conduct the lab study, we need to know the basis for determining themselves to be the best, firsthand. An ideal study would involve testing all the industrial cleansers available in the market; the cleanser which performed highly in removing dirt and killing bacteria could be termed as the best cleanser. Hence, the lab study comparing the performances of only CleanAll and another industrial cleanser is very narrow in its scope to provide any useful insight in this regard.
The second study that is cited as the reason for the conclusion showed that employees working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick days than employees working in buildings cleaned with other cleansers. The study seems incomplete to come the above conclusion. In order to fully evaluate this claim, we need additional data related to sick leaves taken by the employees. We need to analyze alternate hypothesis and eliminate them in order to strengthen the current hypothesis that CleanAll led to fewer sick leaves. Perhaps employees had other illnesses unrelated to hygiene of the building. Perhaps an injury caused by accidental fall led them to take sick leaves. Unless additional survey questioning the exact motive to take sick leaves is conducted and the results are scrutinized, not much can be derived from the sole study comparing sick leaves of employees in building using CleanAll and not using CleanAll.
Another contentious information missing from the second study is whether the results are statistically significant. The study says employees of CleanAll building used ‘far fewer sick days’ than employees of non-CleanAll building. This is a very vague statement. To come to a conclusion using this statement alone is presumptuous. We need to know what was the actual difference between the sick days. How many buildings were compared for the study? The duration of the study conducted. Answering these critical questions will help us resolve the assumptions to fully evaluate the claim.
Clearly, then, we need to have additional surveys and studies to get the information in order to get a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of a particular industrial cleanser. There may be several other factors causing employee illness than hygiene in the building alone. Hence if the idea is to prevent employee illness, a holistic approach in maintaining the hygiene has to be considered rather focusing on just on an industrial cleanser alone.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 32 15
No. of Words: 594 350
No. of Characters: 2997 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.937 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.045 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 215 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 180 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 128 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.562 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.996 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.406 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.274 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.151 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 595, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[2]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...hat determination, we need to know more then analyze what we learn. The main idea ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 285, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ess than hygiene in the building alone. Hence if the idea is to prevent employee illn...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3083.0 2260.96107784 136% => OK
No of words: 594.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19023569024 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93681225224 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75161487844 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 266.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447811447811 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 938.7 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.8879931062 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.34375 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5625 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.3125 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.369968671833 0.218282227539 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.089517772868 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0895015018211 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202661912171 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469477938845 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.