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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The director proposed that all stations in their hospital system should adopt the UltraClean hand soap. To solidify his/her opinion, the director suggested that the hand soap is proven to be more effective than its competitors in a laboratory study. In addition, the hospital which used this hand soap reported significantly fewer infections than other hospitals. However, the director’s proposal is based on several unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unpersuasive as it stands.
To start with, the director mentioned the laboratory study to underpin his argument. The scope and validity of the study, however, is unclear. If the study is funded by the very company that produces the UltraClean hand soap, the chances are that the study is biased. Even if the study is conducted by uninterested institutions or laboratories, we may wonder whether the kind of bacterias they used in the study is typically vulnerable to the UltraClean hand soap. In reality, however, the kinds of bacterias and viruses vary significantly, so it is partial to judge the effect of hand soaps based on a single study. To better illustrate his opinion, the director should provide the result of many other studies where other factors vary.
Besides, it is mentioned that a significant drop in reported infections is observed at a hospital that used the UltraClear hand soap in Workby. However, it is not a clear indication that the UltraClean hand soap is more effective, unless we assume that all other factors regarding the hospitals are identical. In reality, these hospitals vary in every aspect, such as patient population and location. For example, if the weather Workby has been congenial in the past month, whereas the other hospitals experienced snows or storms, then the climate differences might be the cause of the variation in infections. In addition, a specific disease may be common in one place, while rare in another. Without taking these factors into consideration, the hospitals can not hastily adopt the proposal.
Finally, the director concluded that all hospitals should be supplied with UltraClean hand soap, since significant improvements in infection rates have been observed in one of them. However, we may ask whether these hospitals are similar enough in every aspect to be indeed comparable. For example, if the hand soap is especially effective in a kind of bacteria which does not exist in an area, supplying UltraClean may be futile in reducing infection. Also, the costs of supplying the new hand soap should be considered. Although supplying UltraClean might be effective to a certain degree, carrying out the proposal may actually bring about more financial burden to the hospital. The director should take these assumptions into consideration and revise the proposal.
In conclusion, the proposal is based on several implicit assumptions which are not logical. Before further actions are carried out, the actual effect of the hand soap should be carefully evaluated. Also, the disparities between the hospitals should be taken into account.
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager."One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one 66
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager."One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one 66
- 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 66
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager."One month ago, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, finally, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, whereas, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2594.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31557377049 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92844144255 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473360655738 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 821.7 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5362849802 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.76 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.52 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.44 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192477629948 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640978451798 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582066980944 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122767717206 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0639561009097 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.