Argument tries to build a relationship between a laboratory study, which showed 40 percent greater reduction in bacteria than other hand soaps, and a test done within hospitals indicating that fewer people reported infections in the hospital using the UltraClean hand wash. While on the surface the argument appears to be cogent, on further scrutiny, we can see that it is rife with fallacies and assumptions.
The argument tries to build a cause and effect relationship between the usage of UltraClean hand soap and decrease in reported cases of patient infections in Workby hospital. This is vague, and loosely put relation. We are not given any insight about how the test was conducted, and the motivation behind the test. It might be totally possible the test conductors are trying to sell UltraClean and purposefully reported fewer cases of patient infections. Moreover, there is no clear telling of the credibility of the test. How many hospitals were there in total? What groups were they divided into? Was there a control group? It seems that only Workby hospital was the one using UltraClean, which does not proves effectiveness of UltraClean hand soap in general. Workby might have superior cleanliness to other hospitals. Workby might already be taking special care of patients, providing them specific treatments, or assigning them nurses who take care of patients assiduously. This might skew the results. Test conductors should have used a control and experimental group. The result presented might have been substantial if experimental group had showed significant improvement, while using UltraClean hand soap, over the control group.
In addition, the laboratory study seem fallacious. A concentrated solution of UltraClean was used. Possibility of a concentrated solution performing better is pretty high. Whereas a solution with a similar concentration as the other hand soaps currently in use by the hospitals might have produced more trustable result, as we don't know if the same concentration will be put to use, or a diluted solution will be used in the hospitals. Moreover, even if the concentrated solution is used in the hospital, we haven't tested the long term effects of the hand soap. Owing to the higher concentration, UltraClean might have abrasive or other deleterious effects on the patient's skin.
Finally, there is no indication if sanitization was a problem in Workby. Author of the argument seems to endorse UltraClean and there seems to be a monetary benefit for the author. But author forgets to point out if Workby actually needs the product in first place. While there might be cases of patient infection, we do not know if these cases are benign or malignant. Even if there are serious cases of infection, there no clear correlation presented in the argument between these malignant cases being ameliorated by the use of UltraClean. Hence, supplying UltraClean to every handwashing station throughout the hospital system seems like a ploy to sell the hand soap, with no tangible benefits to patients or hospital's service.
After examining and analysing these points, the argument does not seems to justify use of UltraClean throughout the hospital system. It might be possible that UltraClean is a better sanitization product, but more research is needed to make a cogent case.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 707, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'prove'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: prove
...he one using UltraClean, which does not proves effectiveness of UltraClean hand soap i...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 328, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e produced more trustable result, as we dont know if the same concentration will be ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 509, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...ed solution is used in the hospital, we havent tested the long term effects of the han...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 67, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'seem'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: seem
...ing these points, the argument does not seems to justify use of UltraClean throughout...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 67, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'seem'
Suggestion: seem
...ing these points, the argument does not seems to justify use of UltraClean throughout...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, hence, if, moreover, so, whereas, while, in addition, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2799.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25140712946 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91269981482 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 249.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467166979362 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 869.4 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 63.0358275551 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7666666667 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.16666666667 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16531785061 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461337386127 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481743854607 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102185186467 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061397020955 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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
---------------------
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.