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 Nadasept killed 40 percent more bacteria than the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During a subsequent test of Nadasept at our hospital in Saluda, 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 Nadasept at all hand washing stations throughout our hospital system. Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The conclusion made by you that the concentrated solution of Nadasept is able to kill 40% more bacteria then the liquid soaps used in your hospital in Saluda is definitely not convincing and not assuaging for us to replace currently use liquid hand soaps by Nadasept.
As per you say the test of Nadasept is done only in your hospital that doesn’t meant it can assuage the need of other hospitals too. Also the situation of your hospital is not described at the time of the test in your memo it means that there might be some extra cases of bacterial infection in your hospital at the time of test. One thing more you need to pay heed to that Nadasept is an antibacterial so might it don’t have capabilities to fight against the other deluge of infections.
Keeping all these point in mind it is concluded that there are not enough evidences regarding Nadasept is a good replacement of currently using liquid hand soaps. And it might be possible that Nadasept can have wrong effects so further research is required on it.
Minimum 250 words wanted.
There is a button 'Edit' beside the button 'View'. Click it and you can continue writing the essay.