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 accidents caused by bicycling 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 there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument asserts that there is a call for the polity to try to decrease the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that focuses on other factors (apart from the use of helmet) that are necessary for cycling safely. This asserion is premised on the results of studies covering a ten-year period. However, to evaluate the argument, specific evidence are required, three of which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
First of all, there is need to present evidence that demonstrates that the conditions that existed ten years ago are also existing or applicable now. There may have changes in number of the bicyclists during the intervening period such that the actual number of persons reporting the results may have also changed in way that undermines the argument. For example, 35% of 1000 bicyclists tens years ago compared to 80% of 100 bicyclists today implies a comparision between 350 people and 80 persons. This case may make the argument less persuasive. In addition, evidence is required to assess the accuracy of the report from the bicyclists. Such evidence should show that the cyclists were not lying and hence the data obtained from them is reliable. If this is the case, the argument may become more sound. Where such evidence is lacking or reveals that the bicyclists' report is inaccurate, then the argument may become compromised.
Secondly, there is need to present evidence that shows the 200 percent increase in bicycling accidents is significant in terms of actual accident count. For example, if the number of accidents was 5 ten years ago, a 200 percent increase to 15 today or an increase of 10 accidents in ten years may not considered important. Whereas, if there were a 100 accidents ten years ago, then a 200 percent increase now may be of concern. Furthermore, it is desirable to have evidence that compares the number of bicycle accidents to the total population of bicyclists. Such evidence would enable an assessment of the incidence of accidents and hence enable one form a more informed opinion on the persuasiveness of the argument per the premise of increased accidents.
Thirdly, evidence is required to support the statement that wearing helmets make cyclists feel safer and hence take more risks. For example, it is possible that the use of helmet may have no considerable effect on the cyclists attitude or that wearing the helmets makes cyclists more careful when riding and unwilling to take risks. In essence, there is need for evidence that clearly delineates the factors responsible for the perceived increased in accidents in order to to be able properly evaluate the logic of the argument.
In conclusion, the argument at present, does not appear convincing. If the author can provide evidence such as those listed above, then further evaluation to determine it's persuasiveness can be performed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2373 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.975 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.687 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.176 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.905 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 934, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...en the argument may become compromised. Secondly, there is need to present evide...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 219, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cyclists'' or 'cyclist's'?
Suggestion: cyclists'; cyclist's
... may have no considerable effect on the cyclists attitude or that wearing the helmets ma...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 471, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: to
...rceived increased in accidents in order to to be able properly evaluate the logic of ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, whereas, apart from, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2431.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0964360587 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77080966133 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461215932914 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 774.9 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2774792564 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.761904762 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.47619047619 5.70786347227 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.23540615663 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0696118833006 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684324080607 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115333585508 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521940805802 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.