The author of this passage concludes that bicyclist feel safer when they are wearing helmets, which lead to more accidents and injuries. As arguments, author uses the results of a ten-year national study about effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling and number of bicycle-related accidents in the same period of time. As a conclusion, author propose less encourage bicyclist to wear helmet and educate more about safety. While author’s argument and conclusion may seem true, there are some flaws and loopholes in his or her logic.
First of all, author as an argument provides statistics, that bicycle-related accidents in a past ten years increased by 200 percent, while author gives no information about number of bicyclist in those years. It is quite possible, that amount of bicyclist increased by 500% while amount of incidents increased only by 200%. To rely on this argument it would be better to have not just amount of accidents, but its proportion to number of bicyclist.
Secondly, author assumes that wearing helmets gives more confidence to bicyclist and that why they are getting into incident. Nerveless, author provides no confirmation that it really so. What if increased amount of cars led to more bicycle-related incidents? Or pedestrians become to careless and they are main reason of incidents? Some data about incidents can answer this question, but author did provide it, thus his or her assumption that bicyclist take more risks is unwarranted.
Finally, author concludes, that when government will less encourage people wear helmet and focus more on educating about bicycle safety it will reduce amount of serious injuries in bicycle-related incidents. In fact, the result can be opposite. While knowledge about safety is important, it is the protective gear such as helmets prevent severe injuries and even death. Without it people can get more damages in an accidents.
As a result, author’s argument lacks additional information, so more data is required in order to prove authors opinion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author of this passage concludes tha...
^^
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...f bicycle-related accidents in the same period of time. As a conclusion, author propose less e...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...aws and loopholes in his or her logic. First of all, author as an argument prov...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...its proportion to number of bicyclist. Secondly, author assumes that wearing he...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...yclist take more risks is unwarranted. Finally, author concludes, that when gov...
^^
Line 4, column 414, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an accident' or simply 'accidents'?
Suggestion: an accident; accidents
...thout it people can get more damages in an accidents. As a result, author's argumen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...can get more damages in an accidents. As a result, author's argument lack...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in fact, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1720.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 324.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30864197531 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96325230069 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.537037037037 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.458171485 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.176470588 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0588235294 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.82352941176 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191105687713 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628008056364 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0772437161226 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105486086765 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.082208046482 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.