memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.
"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, the Director of a large group of hospital concludes that UltraClean should be supplied at all hand-washing stations in the hospital system to prevent serious patient infections. However, while the conclusion drawn by the director might hold water, this argument is based upon several unstated assumptions, which if proven false, will completely lead to the argument falling apart. The following three assumptions need to be explained
First of all, We need to check the role played by UltraClean at the hospital in Workby, resulting in fewer cases of infection. Director is on an unstated assumption that the lower cases of infection are a direct result of UltraClean liquid handsoap. It may be possible that the hospital at Workby is strict on the cleanliness of the hospital thereby resulting in fewer cases. It is also possible that the hospital in Workby only treats a particular set of patients relating to neurology, where the infectious disease is only very rare in the first place. If either of the above scenarios turns out true, there can be a high impact on the validity of the argument
Secondly, We need to check the validity of the study which states that concentrated solution of Ultraclean results in a forty percent reduction in bacteria population. We do not have enough evidence about the study like the conditions in which testing has been conducted and results have been observed. It is possible that during the study, the conditions affecting the outcome are more favourable to the UltraClean thereby giving a better result than what we actually achieve. Another assumption in the study is the vague usage of “40 percent” reduction in population is unclear and doesn’t provide any explanation of what all type of bacteria it can reduce. Maybe UltraClean is in fact, better at reducing one type of bacteria than the current one but the current handwash helps in killing of wider variety of germs and bacteria as compared to the UltraClean.
Last of all, are people actually using the hand soap provided at the handwashing stations. Director assumes that people who come to the hospital do diligently use the handwash and are careful about the cleanliness. Patients who come to hospital may come for a brief period of time do not use the handwash as frequently as the director assumes patients would. It also might be that people who use the washing stations, do not generally use the hand soap provided. If either of the two example holds true, it would hinder the director’s argument thereby making the argument difficult to be persuasive.
The conclusion drawn from the director that usage of ultraclean handwash in the hospitals will result in decrease in serious patient infections might be true. However, as it stands, the argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions like role of Ultraclean at hospital in Workby, validity of the study and usage of handwash. These assumptions need further explanation to make the argument by the director more persuasive.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2462 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.934 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.699 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.552 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.387 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 326, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...pon several unstated assumptions, which if proven false, will completely lead to t...
^^
Line 4, column 164, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... come to the hospital do diligently use the handwash and are careful about the cleanliness. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 267, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...o come to hospital may come for a brief period of time do not use the handwash as frequently a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 293, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...e for a brief period of time do not use the handwash as frequently as the director assumes p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, in fact, first of all, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2522.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06425702811 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77799615277 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439759036145 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 795.6 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2365837996 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.736842105 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2105263158 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.243808862809 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731590011948 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0498358185292 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122170070604 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374225538906 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => 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.