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 argument states that since the more concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap is reportedly more efficiency than its counterpart, the normal liquid hand soap, which is currently used in hospitals. Therefore, it suggests to replace every original hand soap with the better one. The argument makes a logical sense at first glance, however, there are some specific evidences needed to be provided in order to warrantee its suggestions. Otherwise the argument is spurious.
First off all, the argument cites a report regarding to a harmful bacteria reduction contributed by UltraClean hand soap. However, a specific evidence is needed to justify the report. That is, the actual amount of eliminated harmful bacteria. The number of percentage seems to be ambiguous. If there are one million bacteria in a given scope, then the 40 percent reduction can be considerable; on the contrary, if there are half a million in a given scope, the reduction does not appear as significant as former does. Consequently, the evidence related to the actual number of harmful bacteria eliminated with UltraClean hand soap is indispensable; otherwise, the argument is spurious.
Secondly, the argument avers that in 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, which is reportedly about 20 percent. However, there are some evidence required in order to justify this assertion. Firstly, the test states that there is a 20 percent infection reduction among patients due to the use of UltraClean hand soap. However, there are other causes germane to such reduction. For example, a better health care policy, a well-designed diets and the improvement of medical vaccine. All of these can be the reason that result to the reduction of infection among patients. Moreover, the argument fails to provide the evidence indicating that every hospital in Worktown use UltraClean hand soap. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that, in the recent test, all hospital in Worktown use any related product to achieve reduction on infection among patients. Thus, without providing these evidence, the argument is fallacious.
Finally, the argument makes a logical sense. However, there are some specific evidence needed to warrantee its statement, that is: the actual amount of harmful bacteria wiped out with the hand soap, if all the hospital in the region has used the hand soap and if there are some other factors regarding to the reduction of infection among patients.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-08 | noobmaster69 | 59 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? All university students should be required to take history courses no matter what their field of study is. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
- It is more harmful to compromise one’s own beliefs than adhere to them. 58
- Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance 50
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and exp 70
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statemen 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 2117 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.201 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.781 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.381 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.124 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.465 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 235, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests replacing'.
Suggestion: suggests replacing
...rently used in hospitals. Therefore, it suggests to replace every original hand soap with the bette...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 457, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
... in order to warrantee its suggestions. Otherwise the argument is spurious. First off ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, as for, for example, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2188.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37592137592 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89179482092 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.449631449631 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 73.3854174965 57.8364921388 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.19047619 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.380952381 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.85714285714 5.70786347227 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216247716173 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626258457533 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0755008007838 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14984916272 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359811880542 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.