The argument to be analyzed is as follows:
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.
In the above argument, it is stated that investments in high-quality protective gear and equipment can help in reducing the risk of skaters being injured in an accident. This conclusion was reached due to the hospital statistics that show that the majority of the injuries are due to the rollerskaters not be wearing protective gear. Before this recommendation can be evaluated, three assumptions must be taken into consideration.
First of all, the argument does not provide any actual figures and numbers to indicate the total number of skaters. Also, there is no mention of the number of skaters who met with an accident. In addition to that, it does not mention the number of hospitals from which the data was collected. Instead, it vaguely mentions that the injured roller skaters go to the emergency rooms according to the hospital statistics. It is quite possible that not all roller skaters who meet with an accident go to the emergency room of the hospital that was surveyed. Some of them might have decided to go to another hospital that was not surveyed.
Secondly, It makes a vague statement by stating that 75 % of the injured skaters did not use protective gears. Since the number is not mentioned, it is quite possible that overall, only a few skaters were injured. Maybe in 100 skaters, only 4 skaters were injured. Out of this, maybe only 3 were found to not have used the protective gears.
Thirdly, the argument falsely assumes that investments in high-quality gears can reduce skater accidents. It is quite possible that the severe injuries were caused not only by the absence of protective gear but also by the traffic in the area where the skaters skate. It is possible that the skaters skate in the areas where the traffic is pretty high. It is possible that a heavy vehicle such as a lorry or truck might have caused the accident. In this case, no amount of protective gear can prevent severe injuries of the skaters.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now has several flaws due to several assumptions. Those flaws must be addressed in order to evaluate the suggestion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1701 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.725 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.477 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 56, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...kes a vague statement by stating that 75 % of the injured skaters did not use pro...
^^
Line 5, column 228, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...a few skaters were injured. Maybe in 100 skaters, only 4 skaters were injured. ...
^^^
Line 5, column 246, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... injured. Maybe in 100 skaters, only 4 skaters were injured. Out of this, maybe...
^^^
Line 5, column 296, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... were injured. Out of this, maybe only 3 were found to not have used the protecti...
^^^
Line 7, column 354, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...areas where the traffic is pretty high. It is possible that a heavy vehicle such a...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1752.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86666666667 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70313844186 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469444444444 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.3170879872 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 87.6 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.171312712088 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532198892826 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523454282032 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0859179281348 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0555106891847 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.3799401198 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.67 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.64 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.