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

Essay topics:

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 leaves than employees working in the buildings cleaned with the other cleaners. Therefore, to prevent employee illness, all companies should use CleanAll as their industrial cleaners.

Write the 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 implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The author claims here that all companies should use CleanALL as their major industrial cleanser. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated . In support of this conclusion, the author reasons that cleanall was found to remove more dirt and kill more bacterial than the next best alternative cleanser. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence <!--break--> reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated. To bolster further, I would elucidate in subsequent paragraphs.

First of all, the argument readily assumes that Clean-all takes away 40% more dirt than next best competitor. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, what if the experiment wasn't properly conducted by well skilled lab scientist? what if the test wasn't properly conducted using the standard laboratory operating procedures? Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that the investigation was done by professionals using the conventional techniques.

The argument readily claims that clean-all eliminates more bacterial. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not provide enough information to support the bacterial removal claim. For instance, which device was used to arrive at this conclusion? was a microscopic device used? If the argument had provided evidence that a microscope was used during the experiment then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.

Finally, the author cites that staff of companies using Clean-all for cleaning purpose spend fewer days on sick leave than those who clean with other cleaners. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, what if the employees in the building that uses clean-all have good health insurance plan that caters for their health as soon as possible? What if the staff have good stress management programs to manage work overload? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To elucidate further, the author must provide better concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of the importance of Clean-all over other alternative cleansers. Finally, evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about why employees in the companies that use clean-all spend less days off work due to illness.

Votes
Average: 3.2 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 213, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...the basis of which it could be evaluated . In support of this conclusion, the auth...
^^
Line 1, column 513, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...pport for the author's conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered incomple...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 208, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...nd. For example, what if the experiment wasnt properly conducted by well skilled lab ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 264, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: What
...onducted by well skilled lab scientist? what if the test wasnt properly conducted us...
^^^^
Line 4, column 281, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...skilled lab scientist? what if the test wasnt properly conducted using the standard l...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...als using the conventional techniques. The argument readily claims that clean-a...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 262, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Was
... was used to arrive at this conclusion? was a microscopic device used? If the argum...
^^^
Line 7, column 293, 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.
...clusion? was a microscopic device used? If the argument had provided evidence that...
^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...king rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the author's argumen...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 389, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun days is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... the companies that use clean-all spend less days off work due to illness.
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, so, then, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49425287356 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91100859604 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512643678161 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 724.5 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.4230994944 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.5833333333 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.125 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41666666667 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241564598068 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0681938863685 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080095533004 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138932216065 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0366247289152 0.0628817314937 58% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.

argument 1 -- not OK

argument 2 -- not OK

argument 3 -- OK
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2300 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.263 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.737 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.251 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.05 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5