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
The author claims that by investing in high quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller stakers will greatly reduce their risk of being injured in an accident. To support this conclusion he cites various evidences given by hospital statistics. Although these evidences appear to bolster the argument at first sight but meticulous analysis show otherwise. The author's assumptions fails to justify the conclusion due to following reasons;
Firstly, the author has made this conclusion on the basis of the statistic data provided by hospital regarging the people who go to emergency ward after the accident. According to that report 75 percent of those had accidents in parking lots and streets were not wearing protective clothes. As in the report only percentage is given not the total number of people from which this percentage is derived. By just merely looking at the percentage we cannot say that government should go for investing in protective equipment.
Secondly, the data was collected only from the accidents occured in street and parking lots that does not repersent the whole data of the accidents occured at all the other places. Moreover, it is not given that in which area of the country/state the data is taken from, there might be possibilty the area from which the data is collected accidents occur more.
Lastly but not the least, the cause of the accidents was not provide. It is plaussible that more accidents occur because of the negligence of the drivers or may be due to less appropriateness of the roller skaters material. Other cause of accidents may be over populated area, by this point of view government should heed towards these matters more.
In sum, the author needs to provide more specific data like the number of people from which percentage is taken, real cause of the roller skaters accidents etc. Without conforming these evidences one cannot say that government should go for investing more in high quality protective equipment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 392, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... show otherwise. The authors assumptions fails to justify the conclusion due to f...
^^
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ts were not wearing protective clothes. As in the report only percentage is given ...
^^
Line 4, column 62, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...ast, the cause of the accidents was not provide. It is plaussible that more accidents o...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... these matters more. In sum, the author needs to provide more specific data like...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1662.0 2235.4752809 74% => OK
No of words: 324.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12962962963 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68996311116 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 215.323595506 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6426285708 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.714285714 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.2758426966 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280494911436 0.243740707755 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0933268328489 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751226534651 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149861937734 0.150359130593 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0947962284948 0.0667264976115 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 100.480337079 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.