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 author suggests that UltraClean has a better performance in reducing the number of bacteria than ordinary hand soap. And so using it in all hand-washing stations may sound preferable. Nevertheless, the author fails to provide compelling reasons to support his arguments. To make them more substantial, several assumptions need to be clarified.

Firstly, the author implies that UltraClean could reduce 40 percent more in bacteria population than what the normal hand soap is capable of. While this proves that UltraClean is better in terms of terminating bacteria, the author fails to provide the significance of this number. Whether this number has an impact to a person’s health is not clearly depicted. And also, the terms “bacteria population” in the argument is too vague. It does not state whether the population used in research is actually representative to how much bacteria people usually have on their hands. Whether the number is significant or the bacteria population is representative can make the argument stronger or weaker.

Additionally, while fewer cases of infection is reported in the hospital which is used as a test of UltraClean, the argument does not clarify whether this hand soap also applies to serious infections. The author only assumes that it applies, even though it may not hold true. The bacteria that cause serious infections may have been stronger than the bacteria in the hospital used in the test, making it immune to UltraClean. It is also possible that the fewer infections may have not been caused by the UltraClean, but rather a new medical procedure that is implemented in that hospital. To make the argument more appealing, the author needs to provide additional evidence regarding what types of bacteria UltraClean could kill, as well as evidence that the reduction happens due to UltraClean.

Even if UltraClean is able to prevent further serious infections, it does not necessarily mean that it can be used in all hand-washing stations. If the hospital has budget deficiency, then it has to take account of the cost of UltraClean. The hospital may also need to use its budget for other medical facilities, such as improving surgery equipment as well as improving patient’s chamber, which are more important and beneficial than using UltraClean. Some hospitals may even not have the finance to build a hand-washing station. Unless the price of UltraClean is cheaper or at least affordable, its utility may only be limited to research only.

Examining from various angles and perspectives, preventing patient infections by putting UltraClean in all hand-washing stations does not sound as plausible as it seems. While the author has a noble objective, the solution provided is unlikely to success due to lack of evidence and information.

Thanks for the feedback!