In a laboratory study of two different industrial cleansers, CleanAll was found to remove 40% more dirt
and kill 30% more bacteria than the next best cleanser. Furthermore, a study showed that employees
working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick days than employees working in buildings
cleaned with other cleansers. Therefore, to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as
their industrial cleanser.
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.
The author claims that usage of CleanAll will enhance a healthy workforce by cutting the chance of getting ill at work. Even though it is the case that CleanAll has its merit the argument fails to state it convincingly and is ripe with holes and assumptions.
The primary claim put forth by the author is the result of a laboratory study, which showed CleanAll was found to be relatively more effective than the next best cleaner. The assumption from this is that CleanAll has an impressive performance. The data is presented in percentages and vague terms. How was the 'next best cleaner' decided? Were all the cleaners available studied? The percentages can be highly misleading. If the anonymous next best was too poor in its performance then the fancy percentage numbers convey nothing more than exaggerated marketing strategy. If the assumption that all cleaners were subjected to the study and that CleanAll delivers sufficient performance are proved to be false the whole argument will fall apart. Along with that there is the assumption that the test conditions created in the laboratory faithfully represented the real world situation. It can be doubted that the anonymous laboratory set the test settings in favour of the CleanAll.
The most important assumption around which the author makes his claim is that the employees working in the buildings cleansed with CleanAll is less likely to become sick from the work environment, which he projects as the verification of the laboratory study in the real world. In drawing such a conclusion, from the observation that a study showed the workers in offices using CleanAll used fewer sick leaves, he makes a big leap in the logic. Underlying unstated assumption is that the workers at the offices not using CleanAll contacted illness from their workplace. The residence of the workers, the commute they daily make, the foods they consume are all significant factors to be examined, before ruling them out as the reason behind the disparity. Another unstated assumption is that the location of the buildings did not make a difference. Clearly a company situated in unhygienic neighbourhood has high risk of making employees sick. Also it is assumed that the workers in different companies were involved in same type of jobs. Those who, for example, are involved in chemical processing will be more exposed to conditions that could make them sick than are the desk workers. Because of all the above stated assumptions it is quite invalid to assume that the workers getting sick can be related to the efficacy of the cleaner used in the office.
In conclusion the author fails to make a convincing argument, which will persuade companies to use CleanAll at their establishments. The merits of the CleanAll, tried to establish by the argument, falls under doubt as the assumptions underlying often brakes the train of logic and take big leaps. As a result, it is highly unlikely that companies will start using CleanAll at their premises.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author claims that usage of CleanAll...
^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...CleanAll has an impressive performance. The data is presented in percentages and va...
^^^
Line 3, column 422, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...e percentages can be highly misleading. If the anonymous next best was too poor in...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...st settings in favour of the CleanAll. The most important assumption around w...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 603, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...orkplace. The residence of the workers, the commute they daily make, the foods they consume...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 947, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...as high risk of making employees sick. Also it is assumed that the workers in diffe...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1190, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ke them sick than are the desk workers. Because of all the above stated assumptions it ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...acy of the cleaner used in the office. In conclusion the author fails to make ...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'as to', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251879699248 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.174812030075 0.15541462614 112% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0808270676692 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0394736842105 0.0520304965353 76% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0338345864662 0.0272364105082 124% => OK
Prepositions: 0.135338345865 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.0526315789474 0.0416121511921 126% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76647175714 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0225563909774 0.026700313972 84% => OK
Particles: 0.00187969924812 0.001811407834 104% => OK
Determiners: 0.140977443609 0.113004496875 125% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0169172932331 0.0255425247493 66% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.015037593985 0.0127820249294 118% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3009.0 2731.13054187 110% => OK
No of words: 495.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07878787879 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.353535353535 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.286868686869 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.216161616162 0.208842608468 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.147474747475 0.135150697306 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76647175714 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 207.018472906 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486868686869 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 56.53072092 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 20.625 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.7195977233 57.7814097925 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.375 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.625 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.333333333333 0.724660767414 46% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 49.3118686869 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.77272727273 1.8405768891 96% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.303348473524 0.441005458295 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.111576638981 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0790672103075 0.0829849096947 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.560853626689 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149551922565 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.129577433095 0.193483328276 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614830051755 0.0970749176394 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.570054822335 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.101957490513 0.0774707102158 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223423048187 0.312017818177 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0519670757988 0.0698173142475 74% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.