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.
The crux of the argument was that CleanAll should be used as industrial cleanser cause employees to have less sick days compared to others, where working buildings cleanse with CleanAll. Also, CleanAll was found more efficient that next cleanser. The argument based on unwarranted assumptions and flawed for the following reasons.
Primarily, the author claimed that CleanAll found to remove more dirt and bacteria than next best cleaner. The ambiguity of the argument was about how that study conducted and how many cleansers were compared with CleanAll, and also how did they found the best cleanser. The product must be compared to the other thousands of products. Also, before launching the product must be tested by people. Since there is no data from the author which proves that people's gave their positive review on the product.
The author also claimed that the cleanser was tested on industrial building and the employees had fewer sick days compared to other companies. Again, the author does not provide any information about how many working buildings took part in that survey. It might be possible that the CleanAll company chooses industrial buildings where employees were healthier than other companies. It might also possible that the office building had an air purifier or might be the workers are overall healthier than other companies.
The following argument is flawed and based on unwarranted reasons and also failed to provide any convincing data which can corroborate the authors' claim. The author conducted two studies but does not provide the sample numbers or number of the product tested against the CleanAll. Since the data are incomplete it would be unfeasible to conclude that the CleanAll should be used as an industrial cleaner.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 284 350
No. of Characters: 1455 1500
No. of Different Words: 131 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.105 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.123 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.433 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.933 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.369 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.369 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 397, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” 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.
...g the product must be tested by people. Since there is no data from the author which ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1483.0 2260.96107784 66% => OK
No of words: 284.0 441.139720559 64% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22183098592 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 4.56307096286 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50094953204 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 204.123752495 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471830985915 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 705.55239521 62% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7105192312 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8666666667 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9333333333 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.13333333333 5.70786347227 20% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268640634361 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0996323823538 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10808252776 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174611702154 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0713537408225 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.