As stated by a health newsletter, according to a nationwide survey, the number of bicyclists wearing helmets have increased over a period of 10 years which is obviously a safety measure. But the increase in number of accidents over the time do not endorse the measures taken. It instead suggests that the number of accidents have almost tripled and hence, the government should the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. The conclusion to the statement sounds quite reasonable. But the evidence to back it up is flawed in its way.
First, a sufficient time span has been taken into consideration. It is no secret that over the years, the population of any area increases. And it would be safe to assume that the sum aggregate of all the bicyclists must have increased. Hence, this would directly affect the number of accidents related to bicycle riders. As the population increases, the total number of accidents may have increased. One may argue that it does not really justify the 200 percent surge in number of accidents. The helmets must have done their job of protecting the rider and hence, it is a possibility that the numbers would have been worse if the increase in use of helmets would have not taken place.
Talking about the burgeoning population, it is safe to say that the elements causing bicycle related accidents have also increased. Due to urbanization and flourishing global economy, the number of vehicles on the road have certainly increased. A few other accident-causing elements like narrower bicycle lanes, faster vehicles etc. contribute to the fact that the number of accidents would increase. Hence, the upsurge in number of cases is seen.
Furthermore, the survey fails to acknowledge the percent of riders who unfortunately met with an accident were wearing a helmet. The data suggests that 20 percent of people do not wear a helmet. It may be a possibility that these 20 percent contribute to a considerable number of accidents due to their recklessness.
The evidences and assumptions leading to the conclusion are exploitable. But the conclusion sounds quite progressive. Certain efforts should be made by the government so that a reduction in bicycle-related accidents may be seen. It is a high possibility that many of the bicycle riders are children. Hence a lesson on road safety will encourage them to ride safely abiding by all the rules resulting into lesser amount of bicycle related accidents.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2078 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.971 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.869 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.417 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.046 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 301, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...any of the bicycle riders are children. Hence a lesson on road safety will encourage ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, if, may, really, so, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2131.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0980861244 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95885047537 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471291866029 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.7111650446 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.24 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.72 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88 5.70786347227 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132903596654 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365641723118 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0541809478282 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0835228555326 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052249048041 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.