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 t

In this memo the director of a large group of hospitals recommends that in order to prevent serious patient infections UltraClean hand soaps should be supplied at all hand-washing stationss through their hospital systems. To support this recommendation the author cite s laboratory study which demonstrates that a concentrated solution of UltraClean has a 40% greater reduction in the bacteria population than the liquid hand soaps currently used in their hospitals. The argument also point out that the hospital that used the UltraClean reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection than did any of the other hospitals in their group. The argument rests on several assumptions, it is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument relies on the assumption that 40% reduction in bacteria population will help prevent infection. Yet the argument provides no information to support the assumption.Lacking of it, it is entirely possible that the possibility of infection will remain unchanged.After all, even if bacteria population reduces 40%, it is still enough to cause infection. Therefore, the arguments can not convince me that the ultraClean can prevent the infection unless it can reveals that the bacteria population has been at a level that will not cause infection.

Next, the argument further assumes that the use of UltraClean brings the less infection in the hospital than other hospitals.However,the argument fails to provide information about patient infection before the UltraClean is put into use. Perhaps the hospital that use the UltraClean has less infection than other hospitals before using Ultraclean. In light of this, without the information that can be compared, I can not believe that the infection has decresed after use of UltraClean.

Furthermore, even if the hospital has less infection than before, the argument continually assumes that the reduction in infection is attributed to the use of UltraClean. The argument fails to take consideration into other explanations.Perhaps that the hospital has patients who are less susceptible to bacteria infection during the test time. Also perhaps the hospital hires more workers to clean the hospital and reduce the spread of bacteria. Without ruling out these possibilities that can help reduce patient infection, i can not believe that the UltraClean can reduce infection.

Moreover, even if the use of UltraClean in the hospital result in less patient infection, the argument too hastily assumes that the UltraClean will be also effective in the other hospitals. The argument overlooks a fact that contribute directly to the reduction of infection -- that is the patients have the habits to use the hand soaps. In fact, many patients do not use hand soaps or rarely use hand soaps. Under such circumstance, the author are unlikely to conclude with no confidence that other hospital will benefits from the UltraClean.

In conclusion, the argument relies on unsubstantiated assumptions, and it is unpersuasive as it stands. To access the effectiveness, I need to know that the UltraClean can reduce the bacterial population to a low level that will not cause infection. In addition, to strengthen the argument, the author should provide the information that the infection really declines after the use of UltraClean and the reduction in affections is attributable the use of UltraClean not rather other facts. Abside from this, a survey is necessary to demonstrate the patients in other hospitals have the habit to use hand soaps.