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 argument mentioned in the news letter calls for educating the bicyclists about the factors needing attention for bicycle safety. It bases its conclusion on the premise that, as more bicyclists wear helmets, they feel safer and take more risks. Moreover, the increase in the use of helmets is contrasted against the increase in the number of accidents. The argument seems plausible at first sight. However, on scrupulous analysis, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A stand can be taken only after analyzing the questions that needs to be answered based on the argument.

Firstly, the author quotes the ten-year nationwide study to report increased use of helmets among bicyclists. However, the authenticity of this study and whether all bicyclists in the concerned area were considered etc.. must be mentioned. Additionally, the author states that 35 percent of 'all' bicyclists ten years ago wore helmets whereas now only 80 percent of them wear helmets. On the contrary, it is an assumption that the number of bicyclists remained all most the same all through out ten years and also at the present moment. But, if the number of cyclists have greatly increased now compared to the past, then comparing these numbers by means of percentages will not do good. Therefore, more details regarding the ten-year nationwide study and the number of bicyclists during the period of study and at present must be clearly mentioned.

Secondly, the author states another study which claims that the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. Once again the author commits the fallacy of insufficient data. The question of whether the number of bicyclists remained now and before has to be ascertained to attribute the increased number of accidents. Additionally, the author reaches a hasty conclusion, arriving that bicyclists feel safer because of helmets and so only they take risks and end up in accidents. Though the bicyclists might have felt safer because of helmets, there would have been other reasons for accidents like: problem with the vehicle, drinking and driving etc... Therefore, the author needs to provide more information regarding the authenticity and validity of the second survey and carefully discount other factors that might have lead to accidents.

Thirdly, the author reaches an ineffective conclusion that the government must conduct education programs, for the bicyclists, concentrating on factors excluding helmet-use. Based on the given claims, helmets as the cause for accidents cannot be clearly dismissed. Moreover, the author feels that accidents can be effectively handled merely by conducting education-awareness programs. In spite of this optimistic belief, the author also has to explain what will be done if the education programs do not yield the desired result. For instance, not many people might turn up for the education programs or they might not adhere to the instructions unless otherwise forced upon them. Hence, these alternatives must be considered and relevant explanation be given to support author's recommendation.

Thus, a variety of questions about various factors need to be answered by the author: authenticity and reliability of the studies conducted; exact numbers concerning the various categories bicyclists; relevance of other factors that could have attributed to the accidents; possible prediction of the success of education programs with substantial evidence. The author needs to be more persuasive in putting forward his ideas. Moreover, if quantifiable information is attached rather than mere percentages, then this argument will be highly valid. Unless these questions are answered, the argument is erroneous and cannot be taken further for implementation.