In this newsletter, the author contends that government should concentrate on bicycle safety education for people and less on encouraging helmets, since a study shows that wearing a helmet is less effective for bicycle safety. Although this recommendation seems reasonable at first glance, a careful examination of the statement would reveal it relies on several groundless and unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, the author assumes that most bicyclists are trusty when they were asked whether or not wear a helmet ten years ago. However, it is possible that a number of people lied in the query. This might happen when they think riding without a helmet is not a moral activity and could be punished by police. They know to wear a helmet can help them be more safety, but they just do not like to wear it. But recently, our government conduct a policy that those people who rides without a helmet will not get punished, and then they tell the truth to reporter. Thus, the study’s result seems unconvincing, and the author’s conclusions are by no means cogent.
Moreover, another assumption this newsletter relies on is that the number of bicyclists has not increased dramatically during the past ten years. It is possible that more people like to ride a bicycle to go out, whatever to work or to play. They may want to live a more low-carbon way and exercise by riding as well. If the number get increased significantly over the ten years, such as 10 times more than ten years ago. The 200 percent increased accidents can be a signal of more safety of bicycle. If this is the case, it would undermine the author’s proposed conclusion.
Finally, the author hasty assumes that the accident are mostly related to bicyclists’ ignorance of safety. Nonetheless, if most bicyclists know exactly to put themselves into a safe situation when riding a bicycle, then the government’s education might not reach the expect conclusion mentioned in the passage. It is reasonable that increased accidents more related to the more complex traffic conditions, like many drivers do not obey the traffic rules and drive in the bicycle lane. Bicyclist are exposed to a more perilous situations and the accidents are more likely happen. Without ruling out this possibility, the authors’ argument cannot be cogent and sound.
In conclusion, the newsletter relies on several specious and unconvincing assumptions, so that the conclusion could be groundless.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 402 350
No. of Characters: 1985 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.478 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.938 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.732 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.308 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...yclists are trusty when they were asked whether or not wear a helmet ten years ago. However, i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 264, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... government’s education might not reach the expect conclusion mentioned in the passage. It...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2058.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 402.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11940298507 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87628889302 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517412935323 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 635.4 705.55239521 90% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1031744889 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.9 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.186747030011 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0544238109768 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694353269402 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0962960236108 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0613793221875 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => 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: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
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: 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.