Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
At first blush, the prompt seems to present a logical connection between the seriousness of skating accidents and the presence - or lack of - protective gear. The argument suggests that roller skaters who have protective clothing or who invest in light reflecting equipment sustain less severe injuries compared to their counterparts who don’t. In order to verify whether investing in protective gear is indeed the best way to reduce roller skating accidents however, there are a few assumptions that have to be examined in more detail. This includes assessing to what extent serious injuries are caused by lack of protective gear, and how generalizable this finding is to the population, as a whole. Finally, it will also be important to assess what the author of the argument means by “high quality” gear and how “severe injuries” are assessed. This will affect whether the argument can be fact-checked and verified.
The first assumption that has to be addressed is whether or not there is a correlation between serious injuries and a lack of protective gear. In other words, it is important to verify whether investing in personal protective equipment significantly reduces the seriousness of injury. On conducting a more thorough examination of this case, one may simply conclude that the other 25% of people may have not sustained serious injuries because they were more cautious, and had not been skating as fast or as dangerously as their unprotected counterparts. It may be this caution that drove the results seen above. It is important to test for and parse out whether protective clothing is indeed the driver of less serious injuries, versus a more important factor. Otherwise, investing in greater protective equipment may simply result in extra costs that do not produce the benefits of reduced roller skaters among hospital emergency room cohorts.
In addition, even if we control for other causative factors and determine that protective equipment indeed is responsible for less serious injuries, we have to then evaluate whether this finding is generalizable to the hospital emergency room population, as a whole. We may ask, example, whether this sample is representative of the general population? Are different demographic profiles represented? For example, the population in the sample quoted in the argument may disproportionately have been younger, more aggressive skaters, who have not had much skating experience. An analysis of the general population may include more experienced skaters, careful skaters who may be less likely to be involved in an accident. This different demographic changes to what extent protective gear lessens the impact of skating injuries
Finally, it is also important to clarify our metrics in this argument. For example, how would the author of the argument define “severe” injury or “high-quality” protective equipment? If a group of skaters run into an accident, and the experimental group (let’s say the group who have protective gear) stayed in the emergency room an hour less than the control group (the group without protective gear), can we make the claim that the protected skaters experience less averse injuries because of the protective gear that they owned? One may argue that the results are so similar among both groups as to negate the impact of investing in protective equipment. It may be that the cost of such equipment may not be equivalent to the benefits, such as lives saved.
Although the argument seems to make sense at first glance, it is important to question some underlying assumptions. This includes clarifying the metrics we would use to evaluate the claim the protective equipment results in less serious injuries, as well as evaluating whether there is a direct cause and effect between personal protective equipment and the seriousness of injuries.
- Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment Within that group of people 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wear 80
- Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment Within that group of people 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wear 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 613 350
No. of Characters: 3153 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.976 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.859 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 249 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 204 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 137 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.542 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.027 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.792 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 50, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... assumption that has to be addressed is whether or not there is a correlation between serious ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 826, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r lessens the impact of skating injuries Finally, it is also important to clarify...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, well, as to, for example, in addition, such as, as well as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3251.0 2260.96107784 144% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31209150327 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98984699126 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.408496732026 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1021.5 705.55239521 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.0095107626 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.458333333 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.16666666667 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199349169938 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0589316185857 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052029157225 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120944354271 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0370665455573 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.