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 argument above is well-presented and appears to be relatively persuasive at first glance. Since the study shows that fewer cases of infection was occurred in the hospital that used UltraClean soap than others that did not use UltraClean, the author’s claim of the effectiveness of the Cultra Clean soap seems sound. However, as more light is shed on issues and more detailed facts are concerned, the possibility of alternative explanations leads me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author should take into account the alternative explanation regards the credibility of the result of the first study. The author believes that extra strength UltraClean hand soap is more effective since it reduces more than 40% of inimical bacteria than did other hand soaps. However, it is possible that the 40% of decrease in bacteria is engendered because the concentration of the UltraClean’s solution was greater than the concentration of the others’. If this were the case, it is illogical to argue that the quality of UltraClean’s hand soap is superior to the quality of other soaps. Thus, more valid information on the initial conditions of the two soaps is essential to evaluate the soundness of the study result.

In addition, alternative explanation on the study result conducted in the hospital should be considered. Without consider the innate conditions of the different hospitals, the authors rashly believes that the less number of patient infections were due to the usage of UltraClean hand soap. However, it should be noted that each hospital’s environment is different, and this variance yielded the difference. To be more specific, the hospital that used UltraClean soap may be cleaner and newer than other hosptals that do not adopt UltraClean soap. As a consequence, the cleaner and newer hospital environment may caused fewer number of patients got infected while other hospital’s unsatisfactory environment yield to higher number of infection. In such a case, the author’s assertion on the significance of change in soap is not valid.

Lastly, the author should consider the alternative explanation whether the reduction on patient infection can be deemed significant. In all likelihood, the initial number of infected patients may be marginal so the 20% decrease may not be a noteworthy issue. For example, there were only five infected patients in the hospital, and the usage of UltraClean soap may save one patients from getting infected. In such a case, it is hard to conclude that the soap played a substantial role in reducing the number of infected patients. Therefore, more detailed information on the number of infected patients is necessary.

In conclusion, the argument is not cogent in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should corroborate the soundness of the first study, provide innate condition of hospitals and the number of patients who were infected.