Wallace Lee

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 following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. It is assumed that the supply of UltraClean can prevent serious patient infections. The argument fails to provide any correlation between the reduction in the bacteria population and the possibility of serious infections. Serious infections could be caused by certain bacteria and UltraClean may have no effect of eradicate such bacteria, thus making the reduction in bacteria population have nothing to do with the reduction in infection. Had additional survey justified that UltraClean did kill the bacteria which cause serious infections. Even if such is proved, it still cannot necessarily indicates the effect of UltraClean. It is possible that even 60 percent of the origin population is enough to cause infection. The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions. There’s assumption that the condition of hospital in Workby is totally the same as that of the others hospitals. Population around each hospital may vary vastly. There could be no residents near hospital in Workby and there be numerous residents near hospital elsewhere. In such case, cases of infection in Workby is mostly like to be fewer. Had extra data like the ratio of infection cases to population were showed. Finally, the argument claims without warrant that it is the UltraClean that lower the possibility of infection. Suppose the reduction in population can help lower the chance of infection. It could be the result of concentration rather than UltraClean. The study only provided a vague term ‘a concentrated solution of UltaClean’. Further information is a necessity to show if it is the concentration or it is the UltraClean that help prevent infection. Moreover, exact data of concentration is also vital. Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that supplying UltraClean can prevent serious patient infections. 31mins

Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position. Nations should take first priority in settlement of poverty and unemployments. One of the fundmental rules of the government is to ensure the social harmony. Poverty and umemployment are two major aspects which hurt the peace of the society. The unsatisfactory to the Chinese government soared after the economics crisis, due to the vast-scaled unemployment in China. To make things worse, the government still spared part of the government fundings to the constructions of some museums, further agitating the public. Chinese goverment’s ignorance of the unemployment partly explained increasing social unrests like parades in HK or riots in Xin Jiang province. Suppose people are in a society where riots could occur anywhere and anytime, most people may probably stay at home rather than have the mood to go to the art museum to enjoy Monalisa from Da vinci. Therefore, if the nations determine to suspend government fundings for the arts and spare these fundings afterwards to tackle the social problems like poverty or unemployment, it can more or less pacify the unrests and low down the possibility of social crisis. Further more, suspending government funding for the arts can never be interpreted as offering no help to arts. There are still pleantiful supplements to assure the prosperity of the arts and the government can do a lot herein. Asking the individuals to sponsor the artists, the musumes might be a good alternative. Yet, things are not always that optimistic. As we can estimate, even if all fundings saved are for settling the social problems, the total amount of money will still lag far behind what is demanded. That’s to say, saving fundings for the arts is one possible way to ease the social problems, but there are still a lot to do to eradicate poverty or unemployments. Saving the fundings of is far less enough to settle social problems thoroughly, it can nontheless help ease them. Besides, the government can still offer hands to make sure of the prosperity of the arts in other ways. 36 mins p.s. This is my first GRE essay.