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 bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During our recent test of regular-strength UltraClean with doctors, nurses, and visitors at our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (a 20 percent reduction) than did any of the other hospitals in our group. The explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap."
In this argument, the director of a large group of hospitals asserts the use of UltraClean hand soap in various hospitals in order to reduce the risk of serious infection. But, to justify these claims, the argument lies on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
Firstly, the author talks about the concentrated solution of UltraClean hand soap producing a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful germs than the currently used hand soaps in the hospitals. In my opinion, the author's argument is flawed in this case as it does not provide any pieces of evidence of such results. Had the author attached a copy of results showing the effectiveness of this hand soap it would have supported the claims. Also, as the author is talking about a concentrated solution, the costs of procuring might also increase which might not be feasible for many hospitals.
Furthermore, the author's claim of fewer cases of patient infection in Worktown, due to the use of Ultraclean is pretty absurd. The author claims of a 20 percent reduction in infection rate but he does not provide the figures of how many people the handsoap was tested upon. In other words, there are two cases, 20 cases of infection out of 1000 patients and 10 cases out of 100. Although the absolute number decreases, there is no doubt that the first case is more favorable.
Finally, the author affirms that the 20 percent reduction is due to the use of UltraClean soap. The author's argument is only based on unproven assumptions and lacks veracity. It might be possible that most of the patients in a hospital were suffering from the same disease and a vaccine for the disease had been found lately. This might have led to the curing of most patients in the hospital. Had the author given instances like a survey of doctors acclaiming UltaClean hand soap for reducing the infections, it might have bolstered the claims.
Therefore, in conclusion the author's claims are filled with flaws and incomplete, lacking evidences. Had the author kept the above suggestions in mind, it might have given the claims some mettle. The argument would also be more convincing and well-reasoned.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 367 350
No. of Characters: 1775 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.377 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.837 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.671 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.093 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 213, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ps in the hospitals. In my opinion, the authors argument is flawed in this case as it d...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 101, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... due to the use of UltraClean soap. The authors argument is only based on unproven assu...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 259, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o be more convincing and well-reasoned.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, therefore, well, in conclusion, no doubt, talking about, in my opinion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1824.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 367.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97002724796 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75656681729 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.50408719346 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 555.3 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0155609147 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.333333333 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3888888889 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94444444444 5.70786347227 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208311773387 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653728085922 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110630635463 0.0701772020484 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115394450132 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905960924429 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.