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 numbe

The author of the statement above knows it is necessary to lunch an education program to make bicyclists aware of threats when they put on a helmet, to decrease bicycle-related accidents. This conclusion is based on the assumption that when bicyclists wear helmets, they get lulled into the false safety that no danger will threat them. To further support this argument, the author refers the conformable statistics between the growth of helmet wearing bicyclists and the seemingly parallel growth of the bicycle related accidents during a 10-year nationwide study. As the argument lacks sufficient evidence, the only way of evaluation this argument is when the author provides sufficient evidences.

First, the author needs to provide a firm evidence on whether the study is reliable or not. As it is quoted in the newspaper, the national study is made of by the“reports of the bicyclists”. This highly makes the survey unreliable because the information might be distorted and the report may not be based on the real facts. Furthermore, they might use the helmet occasionally. In a warm weather they might put the helmets aside as it makes inconveniences in riding in the hot weather, and then put it on when the weather gets cold. The source of information should be, for instance, the police reports of how many bicyclists wear the helmets or not, not the bicyclist themselves.

Secondly, assuming that survey source is valid, it is highly possible that the majority of the accidents involve the 30 percent of the bicyclists who do not wear the helmets not the others. Although the increased percentage of the bicyclists using helmets is nearly conformable with the increased instances of accidents_ both get doubled, this alone cannot make any correlation. We need direct evidences showing that the number of accidents of bicyclists with helmets is significantly greater than accident rates of the bicyclist who still do not wear helmets.

Thirdly, there should be evidences attesting that the education classes would sufficiently augment the riding culture of the bicyclist. After taking of the education classes, the attendants might not observe the rules unless the rules are imposed on them legally. The author needs to bring an evidence into the argument, compelling the reader that the education classes would significantly work for the bicyclists.

Finally, even the whole evidences direct us to give credence to the authors’ conclusion, still the last evidence is needed that shows it is the lack of observing safety rules of bicyclists which such accidents happens. It is highly possible that the car drivers are not observing the driving rules and causing such accidents. Moreover, the passerby people might cross the roads where they should not. In these cases, no matter how much the bicyclists observe the rules, accidents can happen.

In short, as discussed, the argument in its current shape has equivalent conditions defying any firm interpretation of the conclusion. Only after providing pertaining four evidences by the author, the argument can be evaluated correctly.