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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The following argument draws the conclusion that "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." While this may be true, but in order to evaluate effectively, the given evidence should be analyzed.
The first piece of evidence that might help us to assess the argument is information about the exact numbers of all bicyclists in ten years ago and today. It is possible that the number of bicyclists who wear hamlet decrease from ten years ago; therefore, percent of who wear hamlet increased. For example, ten years ago ratio of who wear hamlet to who not wear hamlet was from 65 to 35 individuals and during ten years the number of who not wear hamlet decrease from 65 individuals to 9 individuals and the number of who wear hamlet remain stable (so 80 percent wear hamlet and 20 percent not wear; While, the exact number of who were hamlet are stable). If we were to learn that the exact number of who wear hamlet to who were not hamlet increased from 10 years ago, it would strengthen the argument.
Secondly, the author states that "the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent." and implies that most of all these 200 percent are who wear hamlet, but perhaps most of them are who not wear the hamlet. For instance, ten years ago we had 3 accidents caused by bicycling who all of them not wear hamlet and after ten years this 3 individuals rise to 9 (who not wear hamlet). If we had evidence that most of the number of accident caused by bicycling are who not wear hamlet, it would weaken the argument.
Finally, this argument draws the conclusion based on two different studies. It is possible that the studies are not objective or not reliable and valid. The argument would have been strengthened if had provided more findings of studies.
In summary, we need extra evidence to thorough understanding of strengths and weaknesses of the argument. We need information about the exact numbers of all bicyclists in ten years ago and today. Also, we require knowing more details about the bicyclist caused the accident during 10 years and we have to know about findings of more studies in this field.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78325123153 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61218479966 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.391625615764 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 98.4015098607 57.8364921388 170% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.714285714 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 23.324526521 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 5.70786347227 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.292983843257 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121727836111 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0964409273341 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145484038061 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874571314191 0.0628817314937 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.04 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.