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.
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
In the argument, the author assumes that roller skaters are aware of the importance of protective equipment and reflective material. The statistics suggest that a majority of the individuals who had accidents were not wearing any protective gear, which indicates that they may not have considered the potential risks involved in roller-skating. If this assumption is not true and roller skaters are already aware of the importance of wearing protective gear, then investing in high-quality equipment may not make a significant difference in reducing accidents.
Another assumption is that high-quality protective gear will be readily available and affordable to all individuals who engage in roller-skating. However, this may not be the case, as some individuals may not have access to or be able to afford such equipment. This implies that the argument's effectiveness in reducing accidents may be limited to individuals who can afford the necessary protective gear.
Additionally, the argument assumes that the root cause of accidents in roller-skating is the lack of protective gear and reflective equipment. However, there may be other factors at play, such as poor road conditions, inadequate lighting, or reckless behavior on the part of the roller skater. If these factors are not addressed, investing in high-quality protective gear may not be sufficient to prevent accidents.
In conclusion, the argument regarding the need for more protective equipment in roller-skating accidents is dependent on various unstated assumptions. These assumptions include the awareness of the importance of protective gear, the accessibility and affordability of such gear, and the root cause of accidents. If these assumptions are unwarranted, the argument's effectiveness in reducing accidents may be limited.
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to 58
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting you 50
- Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 50
- 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 55
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 270 350
No. of Characters: 1503 1500
No. of Different Words: 118 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.054 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.567 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.319 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.204 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.457 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.641 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...d such equipment. This implies that the arguments effectiveness in reducing accidents may...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 355, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
... these assumptions are unwarranted, the arguments effectiveness in reducing accidents may...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, regarding, so, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1540.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 270.0 441.139720559 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.7037037037 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39534095373 2.78398813304 122% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 204.123752495 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.451851851852 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.7078821625 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 128.333333333 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.08333333333 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188378295885 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.089097888526 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.078419503488 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132602787275 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0510266783761 0.0628817314937 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.08 12.5979740519 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.