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 bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During our recent test of regular-strength UltraClean with doctors, nurses, and visitors at our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (a 20 percent reduction) 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, including those used by visitors, 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 his memo the director of the group of some hospitals claims the idea that using UltraClean hand soap will help to avoid serious infections, on the top of that he suggests to use it for the whole hospital system. While he provides some facts and arguments to support this view point, the memo indeed contains several logical flaws.
The first fact which undermines the successes of this implementation is that the memo confuses several types of the hand soap. In the beginning, the director provides the results of test in which extra strength soap was used, after we read information on regular-strength soap. In the end, the director comes to the idea to supply UltraClean, but it is lucid which type he proposes. Considering that there is no certainty that using that UltraClean for the hospital system will help to prevent infections.
On the top of that, there is no little evidence that the correlation between using this hand soap and decreasing infections exist. Though the memo provides twenty percent falling in the number of infections, it does not prove that it happened because of the hand soap. Perhaps, other aspects had affected this reduction in a greater way. For instance, the number of the clients was fewer last months or the hospital invested more money on a cleaning process and hired more workers.
Moreover, the comparison of the hospital in Worktown with the rest in the group of hospitals is not supportive at all. The memo provides neither information on the scale of this group nor the characteristics of every hospital separately. For example, other hospitals might have a higher percent of infections, because they have more clients than that one in Worktown. Moreover, we do not know how many medical establishments were included in this group. If it is large-scaleб, that the possibility that some hospitals with higher percent of infections can be found increases.
To sum up, based on the arguments provided in the essay, we cannot rely on the success of the idea to use UltraClean for decreasing of infections in the whole hospital system.
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company."Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One 29
- Explain how the new guidelines adopted in the United Kingdom helped to address the specific problems discussed in the reading passage. 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Because modern life is very complex, it is essential for young people to have the ability to plan and organize. 73
- The internet shoud be free of charge. 66
- University should require every graduation students to take public speaking courses Give examples and details to support your answer 88
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- need to make it more clear, like: The reduction could be explained by the high concentration used. If the normal UltraClean is used instead then there could be no reduction in bacteria population.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 350 350
No. of Characters: 1691 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.325 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.831 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.723 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 108 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.499 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, so, while, for example, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1743.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80876906731 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.482857142857 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 531.0 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.3973740255 57.8364921388 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 108.9375 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.875 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5625 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169092222771 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.060235418367 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440424039043 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0971721192276 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489444558937 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
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.