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

The author asserts that CleanAll is a better cleanser than the next best cleanser in order to avoid employee illness. In order to support its argument author has come up with two evidences. Firstly in a laboratory study it was found that CleanAll removes 40 percent more dirt and kills 30 percent more bacteria. Secondly he also supports his argument by another study which says that employees working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick days than employees working in building cleaned with other cleansers. However both of evidences are based on several unstated assumptions which render the argument highly suspect. If these assumptions are do not hold true , than the argument totally falls apart.

Firstly author supports its argument by using the results of a laboratory study which says that CleanAll removes 40 percent more dirt and 30 percent more bacteria. In this statement the author assumes that for these are the only two criteria to decide which is a better cleanser. However he does not involve the criteria which cleanser is safer for the employees. As it is given that CleanAll is more powerful so it is possible that it might be using some chemicals which are lethal to its human beings. And they do not affect human beings instantly may be they work as slow poison, like cigarette. If it is true than it will badly affect the credibility of author's argument.
In order to support its argument author has come up with another study stating that t employees working at buildings cleaned with CleanAll used far fewer sick days than employees working in building cleaned with other cleansers.

Here the author assumes that the number of sick days used directly relate to how often employees actually fall sick. It is possible that the office where CleanAll is used, provides paid sick leaves and in other offices sick leaves are not paid. So in order to avoid salary cut the employees of other office come even when they are sick. Furthermore , the author also assumes that only cleanliness affects the health. He neglects that it is possible that office where CleanAll is not used there water is not purified also the canteen do not take care of proper hygiene which will badly affect the health of employees. If any of these facts found to be true than the authors argument will be weaken.

The author has used the study of some laboratory . However there is no evidence that these laboratory are genuine and there results are not biased. It is possible that the laboratory has some alliance with CleanAll and therefore it has given the results will help in increasing the sales of CleanAll. The author has also assumed that the number of proportion of number of employees having chronic diseases are equal in both the offices. It is possible that because the offices where CleanAll is not used have more people suffering from chronic diseases and therefore they take more leaves.

The argument has made several unstated assumption which seriously affects its validity. The author's both evidences are based on several assumptions. Unless, these assumptions are not addressed the argument falls apart and the claim that all companies should use CleanAll do not seems to be plausible.