Argument Type - The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals. "In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria pop

The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.

"In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of UltraClean at our hospital in Workby, that hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in our group. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system."

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.

Composition:

The speaker argues that UltraClean should be supplied at all hand washing stations throughout the hospital system to prevent serious patient infections. To bolster the conclusion, the speaker suggests a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps which has a solution of UltraClean. The speaker also shows a subsequent test of UltraClean at one hospital in Workby, where gave rise to the effect of the solution. It seems so plausible at first glance; nevertheless, there are several weak and porous analyses which lead the argument to the flawed one.

In the first place, the speaker overlooks other variable which could affect the laboratory study. What if, for example, people assigned to the experimental group used the antibacterial hand soaps more frequently that other people who used just normal soaps? In addition, depending on how well each group of people was controlled or treated toward the infection, the result could be different. In order for the argument to be accepted, the speaker should show that the experiment was well controlled enough to rule out the effects of other variables.

In the second place, the argument assumes that a test of UltraClean in a hospital in Workby could represent the whole conditions of other hospitals. However, there is no comparison of other manipulations or controlled conditions between the hospitals in Workby with other areas. It is quite possible that other medical treatment to protect infection was better performed in Workby or the environmental conditions such as temperature or moisture was better in Workby during the test period. Without nullifying such a myriad of possibilities which could affect the infection results, the argument cannot be justified.

In the third place, the argument assumes that the whole patients could have the same conditions and the same immune systems toward any infection. However, such assumption is flawed because each individual has different immune system and the treatment for each of them should be differently designed. In addition, the argument overlooks the possibility that other antibacterial soaps or procedure could better work for patients. Since there is no additional analysis about other procedure or chemical products, the argument cannot be accepted.

In conclusion, the argument is biased and not reasonable. To strengthen the argument, the speaker should show the lab study was well conducted enough to reject other variables. In addition, there should be a critical data that the condition of Workby quite well represents that of other hospital in different areas. Moreover, in order for me to accept the argument, the speaker should present more reasonable evidence that the soaps of UltraClean can work for every patient, and there is no better way than using the soaps.

Thank You
Time 30min