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 argument that to prevent serious patient infections, the group of hospitals should apply a concentrated solution of UltraClean at all hand-washing stations throughout their hospital system, is not entirely and logically convincing because it is solely based on a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, which has a few unproven assumptions. The author claims, via a dubious recommendation, that a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bateria population than the other liquid hand soaps currently used in the hospital group. Let us look at the multiple false assumptions and drawbacks that the argument contains.

First, the argument presupposes that patient infection are caused by liquid hand soaps only, whilst this is only one contributor among thousand others. According to a report by the World Health Organization, poor hygienic conditions stand to be highest contributing factor for infections among patients in hospitals, throughout the world. Clearly, only changing the brand of hand wash, will not be a solution to bigger picture problem.

Second, the argument does not address the question that which age group is considered for the study, the distribution of people of varying ages, in that age group and health condition of the age group at the time of the study. As to why this distinct and conspicuous distribution of varying ages is to be accounted for, it could be that half or even more than half of the population, considered for study, were already in good health. Absence of such distinct variation of age group study could hamper the entire study on UltraClean.

Third, the author omits the number of cases were reported, out of all the patients tested, some of them could have used other medicines to counteract the side effects and these were not detected by the testing individuals. It is presumed that, because a few samples of the people from the hospital reported fewer infections doesn't necessarily mean that when UltraClean is used by many people in the hospital, still only a few would be infected.

The argument might have been strengthened if only the author had provided with enough evidences and proven case studies to show that implementation of UltraClean hand washing soaps will reduce patient infection. One anecdote does not make an argument. Hence, the author’s argument as written fails to establish the claim.