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 is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety."
According to the health newsletter, the rate of reported bicyclists who wear helmets has significantly increased within a decade, alongside the rate of accidents involving bicyclists. The author assumes that due to these statistics, the bicyclists initiated portrayal of insouciant demeanor because of increasing feelings of security and therefore purports to launch a program that addresses the topic of increasing bicyclist safety with other means. However, before this recommendation is executed, the proposal needs to be scrupulously analyzed, address certain implications, and the answers to two questions need to be obtained.
Firstly, are the accidents that are being reported actually involve the bicyclist who were wearing helmets or do they also include those that did not wear their helmets? For instance, a decade ago there could have been one hundred accidents in City A involving all types of bicyclist, so currently there would be approximately three hundred. However, the extra two hundred individuals could be the 35% of bicyclist who did not wear a helmet when the accident was reported. Due to the wanting of this specific data, it is insufficient to determine whether the accidents are truly due to the burgeoned sense of security. Therefore, if the above is true, then this proposal might not hold merit.
Secondly, the environment a decade ago is significantly disparated from the current environment. For example, the roads could be more dangerous currently than how it was in the 2000's. There could have been construction of highways, or the roads might have deteriorated in quality, leading to many bumps which could cause accidents. In order for the author's assumption to hold merit, it needs to be determined that the roads and environment were comparably and fairly similar.
Finally, is the bicyclist at fault with the accident? The accidents reported could have been between vehicles and the bicyclists with the person in the vehicle being at fault. It is not reported what amount or what the rate of these accidents find fault with the bicyclist. For example, if a bicylist adheres to the laws, stops and cycles accordingly, then he is at not fault. However, a car coming in the same direction may be reckless and run a red light; the vehicle might unwittingly cause a wreck. In this case, the bicyclist is not to blame; he did not take his helmet safety for granted. Thus educating him further regarding safety might be futile and concotting a plan based on accidents involving blameless bicyclist may also waste resources and time.
In conclusion, the assumption of the challenger is drastically flawed due to copious unjustified presumptions. In order for the recommendation of launching an educational program for safety to be reasonable, the author should provide adequate evidence that the stated assumptions are true. The author should also provide cogent reasoning to corroborate his claim. If the author provides the sufficient data, then there could be a possibility of further analysis and explication of the suggested proposal of launching an educational program regarding safety.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-24 | Technoblade | 58 | view |
| 2023-06-06 | kalp98403 | 16 | view |
| 2023-04-07 | poiuy23567 | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-09 | dxy40747 | 68 | view |
| 2023-02-11 | HSNDEK | 63 | view |
- 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 55
- Claim: Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system.Reason: Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts or minds. 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 58
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the comp 82
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. 16
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 498 350
No. of Characters: 2570 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.724 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.161 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.895 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 118 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.737 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 350, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...could cause accidents. In order for the authors assumption to hold merit, it needs to b...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2649.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31927710843 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97884510659 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4859437751 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 825.3 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5033469895 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.173913043 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.652173913 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.30434782609 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.10779091907 0.218282227539 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.034474672406 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499368978017 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0623736961412 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554271293481 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.