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

The director cites studies and tests which suggest that UltraClean soap led to greater reduction in hospital infections than the soap used currently in their hospitals. As such he concludes that it is without a doubt Ultra Clean soap that led to these reductions. Whilst this argument may seem plausible at first glance close inspection reveals that key elements of the discussion are left out and there are other explanations to explain the observed phenomena.

Firstly, the director assumes that the controlled laboratory study (which is cited) is an accurate assessment of hand soap quality when there is nothing to suggest that this is in fact the case. Who conducted the study? If the study was conducted by Ultra Clean themselves the results may be biased or even fabricated to make Ultra Clean look better than it really is. Furthermore there is nothing to suggest exactly how controlled this study was. The study may have been controlled however we do not know what variables were controlled for. Did experimenters use the same amount of Ultra Clean soap as that of the others? If a greater amount of Ultra Clean soap was used during the experiment it simply be the quantity as opposed to the quality of the soap which accounted for the reduction in bacteria. Thus to strengthen the argyment the author must provide evidence to show that the study is trustworthy.

Secondly, the direcotr’s argument suffers from a lack of quantification as he does not provide information as to exactly how many patients were or were not infected. He claims that Worktown had significantly fewer cases of infection however this may not necessarily be so as a twenty percent reduction is not necessarily significant. For example, If there were ten people infected elsewhere and only eight in Worktown this would mean that Worktown had twenty percent fewer infections however, in this scenario, a meager difference of two patients may not be considered a significant reduction. Thus the director must provide information about the amount of patients in order to give a more accurate depiction of the situation.

Lastly, the author assumes that the patient reduction of infections in Worktown is as a result of the effectiveness of Ultra Cleran’s soap however this may not necessarily be the case. Nothing is known about the conditions in Worktown compared to those elsewhere. If Worktown has cleaner conditions as well as better trained staff than other hospitals, a reduction in infections may seem to be as a result of Ultra Clean when it may in fact result from less germs in the environment to begin with. Thus the author must provide evidence to suggest that worktown has similar conditions to hospitals elsewhere.

In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to support a claim as bold as that of the director’s. Had they been enough evidence to rule out alternative explanations the argumenbt would have been a lot more convincing. One must consider all aspects of a situation before statements can be made.