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.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">In the newsletter, the author states that the government should focus more on awareness about bicycle safety and not much on requiring bicyclists to wear helmets as a precaution. The author conncludes this on the basis that in the last 10 years, even as the percent of people wearing helmets have increased by 45 percent, the accidents involving bicycles have risen by 200 percent. This conclusion can be warranted if the author could answer these assumptions.
Firstly, the author compares the data of 10 years based on percentages and does not take into account that the population within 10 years might have rised significantly and thus 200 percent of the population after 10 years might still be less as compared to the number of accidents occured 10 years ago. This accidents would have lowered significantly due to the fact that biclycists wearing helmets have rised and thus, there are less number of accidents as compared to the previous years.
Additionally, the author assumes that the percent rise in accidents despite bicyclists wearing helmets is because bicyclists now feel a lot safer and hence take more risks while riding. This might not be true since maybe the accidents do not occur due to rash driving on part of the biclycists, accidents may involve more than one entity and hence, it may be that most of the accidents occur due to negligence of the other entity involved in the accident. Maybe, a bicylist and a car met an accident; upon investigations, we find that the car's driver was drunk and was speeding way beyond the roads limits. Hence, there may be a lot of cases, where helmets or the bicyclists intentions have nothing to do with the accidents.
Also, the number of people wearing helmets have increased since people are aware of bicyle safety and hence, understand the importance of wearing helmets. This may have increased due to strong advertising from the government on the use of helmets. This may also lead to preventing a lot of critical injuries in accidents and hence, if the government stops encouraging people on wearing helmets, it might lead to more serious injuries than before and thus, completely invalidating the author's argument.
As a result, we found out a number of cases where the author's statements prove unwarranted and might lead to serious problems. Thus, the author's conclusion will need more research to propose that the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.</span><br>
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...tion after 10 years might still be less as compared to the number of accidents occ...
^^
Line 3, column 307, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...mber of accidents occured 10 years ago. This accidents would have lowered significan...
^^^^
Line 7, column 487, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e and thus, completely invalidating the authors argument. As a result, we found out ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 139, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ght lead to serious problems. Thus, the authors conclusion will need more research to p...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 197, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... will need more research to propose that the government should concentrate more o...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, if, may, so, still, thus, while, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2172.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14691943128 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98122819064 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457345971564 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 656.1 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.0252698132 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.142857143 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.1428571429 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.21428571429 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.168053564038 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0645138242998 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0527595309697 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101364296169 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0283875652246 0.0628817314937 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.