"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 is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however

The argument discusses the result of a ten-year nationwide study for the effectiveness of wearing a helmet and , suggest ways to reduce grave injuries. The seemingly logical conclusion is based on flawed assumptions which can't be justified by the vague evidences presented by the author. However one can bolster the claim by providing specific facts and figures.

The study has been going on for ten years. The author notes that ten years ago 35 percent of bicyclist wore helmet ; today , 80 percent of bicyclist wear helmets. 200 percent increase in bicycle accidents was also suggested . The issue arises because the author is being vague and consequently fails to mention the total number of bicyclist (then and now). He then draws conclusion based on the erroneous assumption that there was no change in population, completely disregarding the fact that the population may have changed. For instance if the population ten years was only 0.1 million and now is 50 million then the 200 percent increase would paradoxically be an decrease. Thereupon invalidating the author's conclusion. Conversely if the author provides specific data - population ten years back and now or change in population - it can help reinforce the author's assumption and as a result, the conclusion.

Another problem in the authors assumptions is that he directly supposes that the increase in accidents were related to the increase in helmet wearing bicyclist without comprehending the various other causes. Weather and geographical conditions change in ten years ; maybe the nation has become more prone to turbulent and unpredictable weather or that urbanization has made it more smoggy ,which makes the bicyclist susceptible to accidents. Even an increase in landsliding, mudsliding activities can lead to more accidents. Neglectful roads can be another reason. Moreover the bicyclist population may have also altered. It could be that before the maximum bicyclist were middle-aged and therefore more careful whereas now younger generation, which are more careless, dominates the bicyclist population. There are millions of reasons why the accidents have increased. Placing the blame on only one reason without any further proof or justification is unacceptable.

Furthermore the author's suggestion that to reduce serious injuries, the government should focus on increasing awareness about bicycle safety and not on helmets is unfounded. Nowhere in the argument does the author cites any evidence relating the seriousness of the injury and the helmet. Just because there was an percent increase in accidents doesn't mean that the serious injuries percent also increases. The lack of evidence completely overturns the situation making the author's claim fallacious . On the contrary if the author had shed more light on the relation of serious injuries and helmet providing specific study related data that proves their interdependency , then the claim would have be irrefutable.

All things considered - the flawed assumptions and the lack of specific data , the argument was clearly untenable. Although if the author had included the specific information rather than vague data , it could have made the claim more justifiable.