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.
The given argument highly recommends supplying UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout our hospital system to impede serious patient infections. In order to support the argument, author uses experimental data and the results of product testing in the real situation. These evidences seem to be plausible at the first glance. However, after careful consideration, I find this reasoning is too weak to be convincing, if the author cannot clarify some important questions in the argument.
Most noticeably, the author’s reasoning is highly likely to confirm incomplete analogy. In the argument, author compares liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean with the liquid hand soaps currently used in hospitals, and therefore he/she proves the former is more effective than the later. But the assumption of this evidence is that the kind of bacteria were killed by a concentrated solution of UltraClean is the same disease-bearing pathogens as the liquid hand soaps against in the hospital. We are interest in whether to fight dengue fever and amoebic dysentery instead of the strains of benevolent bacteria founding in our daily yogurt. If author does not provide relevant information about this aspect, it is difficult for us to convince this argument is persuasive.
Another important problem in the argument is that it assumes that the encouraging results of UltraClean in the hospital of Workby can surely replicate in another hospitals. Yet this might not be the case, for a variety of possible reasons should take into consideration. Perhaps the weather of Workby’s location is a suitable place for UltraClean fullfill its potentials; or perhaps the infection rate of this hospital is lower than other ones in the group. In addition, even we accept the result of test, we cannot rult out the others factors that might account for the decline of infection rate. It could be that hospital improve their environment air quality by upgrading their air purifier, which is a useful approach removes contaminants from the air. Therefore, if these possible scenarios can exclude by additional information, the reasoning of this argument will become stronger.
To summarize, while liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean maybe as effective as author assume, we cannot readily accept that its use extend to the whole our hospital system. Without concrete and reliable information, it is hasty to take this policy into action.