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 argument concludes that the industrial cleaner CleanAll removes more dirt, bacteria and employees working in buildings cleaned with CleanAll use fewer sick leaves therefore to prevent employee illness CleanAll must be used. We might however, question the two assumptions based on which the argument is presented.
The laboratory study cited in support of argument states that CleanAll removes 40% dirt and kills 30% more bacteria. To make this relevant the study must first correlate the relation between dirt and bacteria being the sole cause of illness. Did the study’s scope included extensive research to arrive at conclusion that all the employees who applied for sick leave were sick due to infection contracted while in the building? This question must be answered to ensure the validity of the first assumption otherwise it undermines the effectiveness of the argument itself.
The author brings in the second study that concludes that the number of employees taking sick leaves in buildings where CleanAll was used was lesser than places where it was not used. The argument is based on several un-proved assumptions. What is the basis of comparison made between the numbers of employees? Consider this; a Building using CleanAll has 20 employee of which 15 apply sick leave in a year where as another building X using some other industrial cleaner has 200 employees of which 20 apply for sick leave in a year. Now comparing numbers we may conclude that employee of the building X fall sick more number of times but instead it is the other way round. The argument does not clarify the total numbers. Secondly it is not clear weather the reason for high sickness in buildings not using CleanAll was only due to the dirt and bacteria in the building. It may be possible that the conditions around the building or in the employee’s house are unhygienic. Lastly, no effort is made to share the medical history of the employees who fall sick. The employees in building with CleanAll may be healthier than those in other buildings due to reasons other than hygiene. Until proven otherwise this assumption weakens the argument by negating the point that CleanAll is responsible for keeping employees in a healthy environment.
To sum, the authors argument is based on assumptions, which are not supported. If the above raised questions are not addressed they seriously jeopardize the certainty of the conclusion. Weakening of either of the assumptions would lead to falsify the claim
- A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 percent less likely to be involved in a work-related accident than employees who do not receive payment for sick leave. Researchers hypothesiz 54
- "We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of books on all subjects. Clearly, opening t 54
- "During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job acc 70
- The table and note given below give information about student enrollment at the Brighton Co ed Secondary School a privately run fee paying institute in 1990 2000 and 2010 75
- The charts below show the popularity of different political parties in a country before and after the general election The election was won by the Conservative Party and they formed a government with the Liberal Democrats Summarise the information by sele 41
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 343, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ployees? Consider this; a Building using CleanAll has 20 employee of which 15 app...
^^
Line 5, column 361, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'employee' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'employees'.
Suggestion: employees
...this; a Building using CleanAll has 20 employee of which 15 apply sick leave in a year ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
... of which 15 apply sick leave in a year where as another building X using some other ind...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... a healthy environment. To sum, the authors argument is based on assumptions, which...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 80, 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.
...n assumptions, which are not supported. If the above raised questions are not addr...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'while']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.267734553776 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.178489702517 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0846681922197 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0366132723112 0.0520304965353 70% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0205949656751 0.0272364105082 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.130434782609 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0549199084668 0.0416121511921 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67408743406 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0228832951945 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12585812357 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0183066361556 0.0255425247493 72% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.025171624714 0.0127820249294 197% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2502.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 410.0 446.07635468 92% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10243902439 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.365853658537 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.317073170732 0.287650121315 110% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.246341463415 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134146341463 0.135150697306 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67408743406 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490243902439 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 53.7256507637 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8451325104 57.7814097925 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.1 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.55 0.724660767414 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 52.2073170732 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.92233009709 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350010971376 0.441005458295 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.100906088941 0.135418324435 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0456521758038 0.0829849096947 55% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.563114809579 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122853633602 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145262850204 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100249749696 0.0970749176394 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.492505903085 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0689121863058 0.0774707102158 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.257994896724 0.312017818177 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0879723687201 0.0698173142475 126% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.87684729064 218% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.