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 unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument reaches the conclusion that roller skaters must invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, to reduce risk of severe injuries. This conclusion is based on the premise that 75% of roller-skaters who got into accidents were not wearing the aforementioned safety gear. However, in reaching this conclusion, the author fails to address three unstated assumptions made in their argument. If proven false, these assumptions could dramatically affect the veracity of the argument’s logic.
First, the argument assumes that the people who went to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents are representative of the entire roller-skating population. But it may be the case that only those who suffered relatively severe bruises were the ones to go to the hospital, that is, it is possible that a significantly less percentage of such people actually sustain injuries, while only a very small portion of people go to the hospital. This would skew the sample space for the data analysis that was done. In fact, the argument fails to specify what portion of these patients had extreme injuries; what if, in the 75% of people that did not wear safety gear, only a few people were extremely injured, while in the other 25%, almost all of them suffered serious bruising? A failure to address this assumption brings into question the very significance of the ‘75%’ number posed by the argument’s author.
Second, even if we assumed that the 75% figure is accurate, the argument still makes the assumption that protective clothing would reduce the number of roller skaters having accidents. However, it may be the case that the equipment currently available in the market is ineffective, and that protective gear impeded skaters from making swift moves to get out of precarious situations. It may even be possible that people who skate at night with reflectors are mistaken for other vehicles, and that drivers do not expect them to make immediate turns in some directions. Moreover, it may be the case that helmets and knee pads restrict the view or movement of a skater, and that people often purchase and adjust the safety gear from other sports for the purpose of skating. Thus, when suggesting protective gear as a precaution for skaters, the author must provide conclusive evidence that such equipment has proven to be effective in other, similar towns.
Third, the author fails to consider other possible causes for the proportion of injured skaters not using safety gear. Perhaps, there is simply no store in the local region that has the required safety gear. It is possible that the skaters are all beginners who are learning to skate, but are doing so on terrain that is not conducive to figuring out how to skate. It may simply be the case that the community of roller skaters in the area does not heed basic safety measures, like, say, not skating on a road full of traffic and speeding vehicles. What if, say, most of the accidents were due to the rainy season making skating parks more slippery, or they were caused by inadequate maintenance of such areas? The author must rule out all these possibilities by explicitly specifying the degree to which protective gear could help, and by showing how all other factors are less important for safe skating.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed. By making multiple unstated assumptions, it jumps to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, leading to a largely unpersuasive argument. The author must consult a more thorough, comprehensive study about the benefits and drawbacks of protective gear use in skaters, and present substantiative evidence to prove their case. The argument needs an overhaul, and would need to be rewritten with meticulous attention as to how conclusions are drawn. Currently, it has taken the results of a study and drawn a false equivalence between the ‘75%’ figure, and the need for protective gear use.
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 80
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the 60
- The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked both its economy and national identity are endangered Because illegal immigrants pose such threats every effort mu 70
- Nowadays there are a large number of coffee shops and fast food vendors on high streets and in town centres Why are there so many of these outlets What effect is this having on the society 84
- 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 i 58
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, third, thus, while, as to, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3331.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 650.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12461538462 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04926703274 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82322615409 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 204.123752495 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483076923077 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1040.4 705.55239521 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 10.0 1.67365269461 597% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6344704722 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.24 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226712277169 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614299863252 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659671598508 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125796307526 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647588373317 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 98.500998004 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, third, thus, while, as to, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3331.0 2260.96107784 147% => OK
No of words: 650.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12461538462 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04926703274 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82322615409 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 204.123752495 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483076923077 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1040.4 705.55239521 147% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 10.0 1.67365269461 597% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.6344704722 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.24 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.72 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226712277169 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614299863252 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0659671598508 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125796307526 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647588373317 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 98.500998004 160% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.