The following appeared in a health newsletter A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whereas today that number i

The argument claims that the instances of bicyclists wearing helmets have increased from 35 percent to 80 percent in the last ten years, according to a ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helment while bicycling. Simultaneously, the number of bicycle-related accidents have gone up by 200 percent. The results of the study state that the bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets and thus, they are more inclined to take a risky ride. It concludes that to reduce the number of injuries from these accidents, the goverment should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging bicyclists to wear helmets. Stated in this way, the argument provides a distorted view of the situation and it is infested with poor reasoning. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is fallacious.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the instances of bicycle-related accidents is only due to wearing of helmets by the bicyclists and the consequent tendency to take more risks, without taking into account other responsible factors. Just because bicyclists ride without fear does not mean that they are the ones responsible for the accidents. The accidents could have resulted from the reckless driving of the other party involved or they could have resulted from other mishaps such as brake failures, malfunctioning of the traffic lights during peak hours etc. Without specific details about the nature of these accidents, the assumption does not have the necessary support to stand on. Moreover, there is no proper mention about the people or the organization behind the ten-year nationwide study. The details are expressed in the form of percentages rather than numbers to make them look convincing. For instance, 35 percent could mean 3.5 of 10 or 3500 out of 10000. Thus, in the absence of numbers and the information about the credibility of the study, the assumption is seriously weakened.

Secondly, a correlation has been made between two studies in a rather unconvincing manner. There is no mention about the following information - How are these studies related? Was the second study undertaken by the same people or the organization as the first? In what manner was the study undertaken? Without proper answers to questions as these, one cannot rely on this correlation. It also claims that if the government started concentrating more on educating people about safety and less on encouraging bicyclists to wear helmets, the number of accidents would reduce. This claim is actually vague. What if the number of accidents remain the same despite the education regarding safety? What if the injuries caused by not wearing helmets turn out to be more serious than the ones resulting from wearing helmets? Bicycle safety is the major reason why the goverment enforced the use of helmets in the first place. By discouraging the use of helmets, the government would actually exacerbate the situation. The argument fails to consider this side of the coin.

Therefore, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons amd thus, unconvincing. Had the above claims been supported by a proper evidence, the argument would have sounded more plausible. In order to asses the merits of the argument, it is necessary to have a full knowledge about the subject.