The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did t

The director of the hospitals who wrote this memo has an illogical sequence in his causal chain. He/She assumed that the using of UltraClean solutions at all hand-washing stations throughout the hospitals would prevent sever patient infections. This seems like a plausible argument, but upon a closer scrutiny it falls apart. Let's take a deeper look to see how the first few points do not necessarily lead to the conclusion stated.

The first flaw of this argument is, the director claimed that the concentrated solutions of UltraClean caused a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in their hospitals. He/She did not mention the concentration of the currently used hand soups, the decreasing of the bacteria population might be due to the high concentration of UltraCLean not because it is more effective than the used hand soups. They should make further laboratory studies to test the effectiveness of the currently used hand soups in the same concentrations like that of UltraClean. Furthermore, the director did not provide any information about the dermatological tests and whether this concentrated solutions are safe for all skin types or not. Some people are sensitive to the concentrated hand wash solutions and suffer from sever allergic problems, therefore it is very important to consider the validity of the concentrated UltraClean.

The second point I would like to shed the light on is that, the director's assumption that a fewer cases of patient infection resulted from the using of UltraClean sets up a classic case of logical fallacy "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc". He/She assumed that the fewer cases of infections resulted from the use of UltraClean, he/she failed to consider other plausible reasons. For instance: proper sterilization of the medical equipment would result in a significant reduction of patient infection. Furthermore, according to the director's memo the concentrated UltraClean is effective in all situations including the workby and the whole hospital. However, the conclusion depends on laboratory studies where there are no other factors affecting on the results.They should consider all the hospitals' conditions that might affect the potency of UltraClean.

Finally, the director's conclusion that UltraClean should be supplied at all hand-wash stations throughout their hospitals to prevent serious infections, considered as an either/or logical fallacy. they should accept that the concentrated UltraClean is the only solution to prevent the serious infections or the infection's problem will continue to increase. In either case he failed to support his points.

To sum up, the conclusion that the use of the concentrated UltraClean would prevent serious infections is untenable and unsupported. Unless the director provide clear and sufficient evidences to substantiate his assumptions, the argument is vulnerable to criticism.

Votes
Average: 7 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

argument 1 -- it is out of topic:
'Furthermore, the director did not provide any information about the dermatological tests and whether this concentrated solutions are safe for all skin types or not. Some people are sensitive to the concentrated hand wash solutions and suffer from sever allergic problems, therefore it is very important to consider the validity of the concentrated UltraClean.'

Simply:
It works only in a laboratory. It may not apply to a hospital practically.

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- OK

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 458 350
No. of Characters: 2443 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.626 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.334 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.028 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.526 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5