In the argument, the author comes to a conclusion that the government should pay attention to the safety education instead of taking measures, such as wearing a helmet, to protect bicyclists themselves. To illustrate the effectiveness of the argument, the author provided several assumptions, however, not convincing enough to persuade us.
In the beginning, the author assumes that a ten-year nationwide study can prove that there are more people wearing helmets now than ten years before. But the number 35 percent and 80 percent are just two specific percentages of the report, rather than direct numbers. It is entirely possible that nowadays few people wear helmets, only if the total number bicyclists is much less than ten years ago. The author fails to provide accurate numbers of the bicyclists, thus we can not have a comparison of the bicyclist changes through the ten years.
In addition, the author assumes that another survey shows that the bicycle-related accidents has increased dramatically in the same ten-year period. However, the author doesn’t explain the agency who conducted the survey, the total number of the sample and the location where the researchers did the study. Without the details, we can not trust in the representative, accuracy and the equality of the study. Even if the study is convincible, the arguer fails to present an exact number of the increase. Only with a percentage provided, the author can not make an assumption about the accidents happened throughout the ten years.
Granted that there do exists more accidents, and there are more people wearing the helmets, the author still can not assume that there have a correlation between the helmets wearing and accidents. In fact, there might be some other factors that cause the increase of the accidents, for example, the less favorable conditions of the road, or the more often bad weathers. Perhaps, the high speed cars which rush into the bicycle lane might also be the reason of more accidents. Without ruling out the these and other alternative explanations, the author fails to convince us that there have a cause of effect between the helmets wearing and the number of accidents.
In sum, the vague data, the skepticism of the authentic of the study and the fault cause and effect relation all undermines the convincible of the argument. Without providing more details about the study and ruling out other possible explanations, the author cannot convince us that the government should not encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Even if the study is convincible, the arguer fails to present an exact number of the increase.
Error: convincible Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: In sum, the vague data, the skepticism of the authentic of the study and the fault cause and effect relation all undermines the convincible of the argument.
Error: convincible Suggestion: No alternate word
---------------
argument 1 and argument 2 are not correct, and they should be together:
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.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2081 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.648 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.18 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.603 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 520, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...xact number of the increase. Only with a percentage provided, the author can not ...
^^
Line 7, column 167, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'helmets'' or 'helmet's'?
Suggestion: helmets'; helmet's
...at there have a correlation between the helmets wearing and accidents. In fact, there m...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 310, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'encourage'
Suggestion: encourage
...vince us that the government should not encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, still, then, thus, for example, in addition, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2148.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 414.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1884057971 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77615579614 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485507246377 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.005596934 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 126.352941176 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3529411765 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.23529411765 5.70786347227 92% => 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 : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.262586028949 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0845699845658 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0793788972823 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141218067304 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0907332571242 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.