The following appeared in a 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.
The director of the group of hospitals states in his memo that a laboratory study concluded that a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent reduction in bacteria population compared to the current liquid soaps used in the hospitals. Testing of UltraClean in their hospital in Workby resulted in a decimated number of patient infections than in other hospitals. The director concludes that UltraClean must be used in handwashing every station in the hospital system. The argument is rather unconvincing given the evident flaws in logic.
To begin with, the director does not delve into the laboratory tests that were conducted for UltraClean, whether it was tried and tested, toxicity test results are not mentioned. Some patients could show an extreme reaction to it or even may be allergic to the hand soap. There is lack of information regarding its contents as well. Such a conclusion was drawn without authentic and significant data to support it. There can also be companies manufacturing hand soaps that result in a decrease in bacterial population by a greater percentage.
Additionally, the director claims that subsequent testing of UltraClean at the WorkBy hospital resulted in a significant reduction if the number of cases of patient infections. This conclusion is erroneous, the number of decreased cases could be a result of improved health due to successful treatment, optimal response to the antibiotics and even the patient intake that particular day. The efficacy of the hand soap need not be the only factor. The director also provides no information regarding how many infectious cases decreased as a result of using the UltraClean antibacterial hand soap, one is not aware of how many doctors and nurses used it prior to operating or treating and how many patients showed improved health as a result of them using it. Most of the patients taken into the study could have been of perfect health.
Lastly, to mention that in order to prevent serious patient infections, UltraClean should be supplied in all workstations at all hospitals is unseemly. For healthcare advancements, when it comes to preventing infections, though improved sterilisation using hand soaps is a major parameter, there has to be notable improvement in response to treatment and antibiotics, enhanced treatment strategies and procedures, and the most important of all- following a strict antibiotic regimen to prevent any cases of resistance which would only worsen the condition.
Thus, there are multiple logical discrepancies in the given argument. In order to bolster it, the author could have supplied information regarding the number of patients taken in for the understudy, detailed information from the laboratory testing studies and the number of infection cases reduced as a result of using UltraClean hand soap.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, then, thus, well, as to, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2389.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 450.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30888888889 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01846907481 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 215.323595506 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491111111111 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 747.0 704.065955056 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.7875252838 60.3974514979 159% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.722222222 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94444444444 5.21951772744 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260861990969 0.243740707755 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0813445751161 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114186733245 0.0758088955206 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151680935758 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11262910556 0.0667264976115 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.