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. Therefore, to prevent serious patient infections, we should supply UltraClean at all hand-washing stations, including those used by visitors, throughout our hospital system."
Writer assumed that if Ultraclean hand soap will enter in the hospital system than the infection could be decrease to some extend but writer argument is lack of evidence about new soap and fails to gain the conclusion.
Writer stated that in controlled laboratory they tested extra strength UltraClean solution and in fact in hospitals they tested with regular strength and last they want to supply ultraclean soap to the hospitals but haven’t provided the concentration of the soaps at all stages were not provided so if they use only ultraclean than may be infection will not decrease.
Further, writer stated during test patient infection significantly decrease to 20 percent. It would be the case that at that time hospital was clean so harmful bacteria was not present.Author haven’t provided information that whether they have also use another soap or not,besides they had used another soap than infection definitely decrease. Maybe at test time admitted patients had not decease which could infect to other people. It would be the case that they tested on only non-infected persons.so,writer haven’t provide the information about the test how much time they tested,how many people tested etc.
Author have tested on only hospital in worktown and jumped to the conclusion but it’s too early to predict same effect remains in all other hospitals.Maybe worktown hospital was located in crowded area so that probability of infection was high.It would be the case that other hospitals have more patient of infected decease and in case they replace the new soap and may it would not affect the patient’s infection.
Last but not least,Author assumed that new soap effect was same in normal infection and serious infection but that is not necessary that serious infection bacteria also removed by Ultraclean soap.Again Author haven’t provided the bacteria level.
In sum,Argument was convincing at first sight however at deep analysis it is found to be rife with loopholes and assumption and that was seriously weaken the writer’s conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-08-16 | sauravsharma001 | 58 | view |
- A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Moreover, the majority of f 70
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 50
- 154The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client.Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experie 50
- "For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, all of the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent 40
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In deve 58
Again Author havent provided the bacteria level.
Again the author hasn't provided the bacteria level.
writer havent provide the information
the writer hasn't provide the information
Always put a space after punctuation marks. E-rater is sensitive.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 345 350
No. of Characters: 1690 1500
No. of Different Words: 155 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.31 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.899 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.498 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.643 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.34 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.647 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5