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 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."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The prompt recommend a shifting approach from more attention on educating motorcycle drivers to forcing to wearing helmet. To take this conclusion, they consider the increase in the rate of bicyclist-related accidents because drivers feel safer and drive more dangerously when they wear helmets. However, before this recommendation can be evaluated properly some assumption must be evaluate.
First of all, enough evident has not presented in order to relate the growth of accidents to the driver's feeling? It is obvious that since ten years ago, the number of motorcycles production has increased which is a very good reason for increasing the number of accidents. Moreover, as the reported results are based on percentages, we are not aware of the exact number of accidents to compare them accurately. For example, it is likely that today the extent of changes in the number of accidents is less than ten years ago but the rate is more because it would be effected by the numbers of vehicles. If either of these scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significant weakened.
Besides, the main reasons of serious injuries has not mentioned. It is possible that the structure of the cities would be the main reason of accidents. For example through rising in the production of various vehicles, appropriate lines for motorcycle and bicycles has not been designed. As a result, the speed of other cars is more than motorcycles and when they collide to motorcycle, many fatal casualties occur. If this assumption that inappropriate communication road are the main reason for the accidents then the argument do not holds the water.
At last, the argument conclude that more attention on education is more useful in preventing occurring accidents than mandatory rules. However, it is possible that if the driving rules not been executed by the polices, the number of drivers wearing helmets would decrease and corresponding the rate of serious injuries in accidents would increase. Furthermore, the productivity of this conclusion is vague since educational classes have been conducted in order to teach adequate information about driving safety before obtaining the driving license. But there many delinquents people who ignore the rules easily so education is not a big deal for them to override. If, the above is true, then the argument would be unwarranted.
To sum up, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that pedagogic training are more useful than mandatory rules for wearing helmets.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2124 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.118 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.834 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.968 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.347 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 616, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this scenario' or 'these scenarios'?
Suggestion: this scenario; these scenarios
...y the numbers of vehicles. If either of these scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 536, Rule ID: DONT_NEEDS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'hold'?
Suggestion: hold
... the accidents then the argument do not holds the water. At last, the argument conc...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, for example, as a result, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2170.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22891566265 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9126899114 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503614457831 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 697.5 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2314556329 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.210526316 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8421052632 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.10526315789 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135979509319 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387475955805 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056315696851 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0722981661129 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630211548851 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.