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

The director of a large group of hospitals, in the statement above, believes that supplying UltraClean Soaps at all hand-washing stations of the hospitals would prevent serious patient infections. This conclusion is based on a premise that this soap would work drastically better than the currently used soaps in the pertaining hospitals. The author reaches to this conclusion via taking for granted several unsupported assumptions.

First, because the “concentrated” solution reduced the bacteria population by 40% more than soaps regularly used in the hospitals, the author assumes the superior efficiency of the UltraClean soaps over what used currently in the hospitals. However, we do not know whether the same concentrated solution would be used in the hospitals. If the non-concentrated version of the UltraClean soaps is going to be used, then the efficiency might not be the same. Furthermore the author fails to consider that there is another serious cause of the infections, fungi. It is possible that fungi can grow better in UltraClean solution.This might make the hospitals vulnerable to fungus infections.

Secondly, the author assumes that the hospital in the Workby, has fewer patient exclusively due to the change in the soaps. It is possible that other factors has led to this result. The humidity of the air is favorable for bacteria growth. Workby might be a in a very dry climate unfavorable for any bacterial growth. It is possible that the cleaning services are much more meticulous in that hospital than any other hospital. Furthermore, the personnel might have been more educated to observe the hygiene rules not to give way to any possible infection.

Finally, even if all the possible evidence is in favor of the author’s conclusion, the author hastily predicts that with UltraClean any serious infection would be precluded. There is no evidence suggesting this conclusion. The 40% decrease in the population of the bacteria may not be enough to prevent all serious infection. It is possible that the remaining bacteria infect the bodies. Patients might not wash their hands enough. The personnel may not meet the hygiene rules. The trashes might not be emptied regularly and so on. Furthermore this soap is used only for hand washing. The infections can spread via myriads of ways. They can be airborne, so the mere washing hands with the effective soap might not be sufficient in preventing infectious diseases.

In short, as discussed, the author makes the conclusion via taking several assumptions for granted. With the possibility that each assumption be unwarranted, the conclusion which is based on such a weak argument cannot be tenable.