The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bact

The director argues here that UltraClean liquid hand soap should be used at all hand washing stations throughout the entire hospital chain, based on the results of a controlled laboratory study and a recent test carried out at Worktown. However, close examination of the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning which when coupled with a number of unstated assumptions renders the argument unsubstantiated.

First of all, the director chose to highlight the results of the study which compared the effectiveness of UltraClean with respect to the other hand washes currently in use at the hospitals, but that does not necessarily prove that UltraClean is the best hand wash in the entire market. There may be many more hand washes which are not currently being used in this particular hospital chain, but may be especially popular in other hospitals. As long as the efficacy of UltraClean is not tested against all its competitors, one cannot definitively state which one is the best of the lot.

To support his argument in favor of UltraClean, the director provides the seemingly informative results of a recent test conducted in Worktown. What he fails to consider is the results obtained using UltraClean hand wash in Worktown may have been influence by a variety of other factors. For example it may so happen that the hospital in Worktown implemented far more stringent procedures for instrument sterilization as compared to the other hospitals in the chain during the entirety of the test period, which might have substantially contributed to the reduction in patient infection. In absence of any discussions regarding this, it becomes difficult to conclude that UltraClean is solely responsible for promoting the reduction in patient infection.

Furthermore, one must also consider the seriousness of the infection. It may so happen that UltraClean is far more effective in combating with less harmful bacterial strains, and mat not yield acceptable results while dealing with the more resilient ones. Therefore the director’s suggestion about using UltraClean to prevent serious patient infection also seems rather unfounded without any supporting evidence.

In conclusion, it may be inferred that the director’s argument, in its current state is unpersuasive. Some of the key issues, including those raised above need to be properly discussed before a proper conclusion can be drawn. Proper collaborating evidence must be provided in order to support the director’s recommendation regarding the use of UltraClean as a hand wash in the entire group of hospitals.