The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals.

“In a controlled laboratory study of liquid hand soaps, a concentrated solution of extra strength UltraClean hand soap produced a 40 percent greater reduction in harmful bacteria than did the liquid hand soaps currently used in our hospitals. During our recent test of regular-strength UltraClean with doctors, nurses, and visitors at our hospital in Worktown, the hospital reported significantly fewer cases of patient infection (a 20 percent reduction) than did any of the other hospitals in our group. The explanation for the 20 percent reduction in patient infections is the use of UltraClean soap.”

Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.

The speaker makes a strong case for the effectiveness of UltraClean hand soap by citing a controlled laboratory study that demonstrates its superiority over regular hand soap. Indeed, the study does show an impressive reduction in bacteria when UltraClean is used over regular hand soap. However, there are two major weaknesses in the speaker’s contention that are apparent from the information presented. First, the manner in which the study was conducted is questionable. A control group is not included, so the researcher is unable to compare the effectiveness of the soap and water used in the study with that of regular hand soap. Furthermore, the researcher does not reveal the specific bacterial strains used in the study, so it is impossible to know whether the reduction in bacteria was due to the UltraClean soap or due to some other factor.

Second, the hospital’s assertion that the use of UltraClean soap resulted in a 20 percent reduction in patient infections is unsubstantiated and may be the result of an inaccurate comparison. It is entirely possible that the reduction in infections was due to other factors, such as improved sanitation and hand-washing techniques, or to improvements in the medical instruments used. It is also possible that other factors contributed to the 20 percent reduction. For example, it is possible, although not proven, that the 20 percent reduction was due to a reduction in the number of germs on the hands of the medical staff. The researcher’s assertion, however, is based solely on the observations of hospital staff, who may have been influenced by personal opinions or other factors.

More research is needed to fully evaluate the effectiveness of UltraClean soap. However, even at this point, it is clear that the statement is premature. If the hospital is basing its purchase and use of UltraClean soap on the results of this study, it would be wise to conduct additional research before insisting on the use of UltraClean soap.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share