The following appeared in a health newsletter. (123, 125)
"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 bicycle-related accidents 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, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."
In this newsletter, the author claims that the government should educate people about bicycle safety rather than encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. To supper her argument, she points out that the rate of people who wear helmets have increased from 35% to 80% during ten years and cited another study show that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-rated accidents has increased 200%. Careful scrutiny reveals that this argument has several logical flaws.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the increasing number of accidents is really substantiated.
However, if we statistically rate the number, that could be meaningless. Common sense tells us that the more number of users increases, the high number of accidents increase. until she presents specified data about the difference between the number of accidents per the same number of the person between the recent term and 10 years ago, this argument is not persuasive.
Second, the author hastily assumes that wearing helmets is related to the occurrence of accidents. In fact, using helmets is irrelevant to an occurrence of incidents. Rather than, the helmet is a kind of protective gears when the accidents occurred. If she cannot explain why she thinks using helmets is followed by increased accidents, this argument is not cogent
Finally, even if we admit other problematic assumptions are true, there is still a lethargic problem. based on the studies, the author hastily assumes that the main cause of increasing accidents is lack of training usage of bicycles. However, accidents could be occurred by other factors. For example, lack of proper facilities and infrastructure, or carelessness of car drivers or pedestrian could be factors of this case. If This is true, we cannot be convinced by this argument
In conclusion, this newsletter is dubious as it stands. To make this newsletter more persuasive, she has to explain that why she thinks increased accidents are a result of using helmets and present us specified data about the exact rate of the accidents. To evaluate better, we have to know whether the real factor of accidents is lack of education or not.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. maybe other reasons caused the accident.
argument 3 -- not exactly. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Thus, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 353 350
No. of Characters: 1777 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.335 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.034 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.701 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.469 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.176 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 9, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ents is really substantiated. However, if we statistically rate the number, tha...
^^
Line 4, column 177, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Until
... the high number of accidents increase. until she presents specified data about the d...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 103, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Based
...ue, there is still a lethargic problem. based on the studies, the author hastily assu...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 481, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... we cannot be convinced by this argument In conclusion, this newsletter is dubiou...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, really, second, so, still, as to, for example, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1837.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 353.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20396600567 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79808684983 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.512747875354 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.9287784266 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.058823529 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7647058824 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76470588235 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => 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: 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: 0.123279063724 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365567000761 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597966816312 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0623826703544 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0852255711203 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.