The following memo was published by the Welzaton City Commission.
“A recent nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a safety 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, cites a 200 percent increase in the number of serious accidents involving bicycles during the same period. Meanwhile, results of a local survey of frequent bicycle riders indicate that 75 percent of those riders feel “much safer” on busy roads when they wear helmets than when they don’t. Clearly, the best explanation for the rise in bicycle-related accidents is that bicyclists take more risks now than they did ten years ago because they feel safer when they are wearing helmets.”
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In the memo, the author concludes that since bicyclists nowadays feel more confident, and are not afraid of taking more risks, there is an undeniable increase trend in bicycle related accidents. The author comes to this conclusion based on several premises, which if correct, could indicate that the argument holds water. However before the conclusion can be adequately assessed, the author should provide three pieces of additional evidence in order to increase the persuasiveness of the assertion.
To begin, the author wrongly juxtaposes two different surveys which were realized in a ten year gap. The world is witnessing an unstoppable change in a lightning speed that it is nearly impossible to compare surveys done in different time intervals. Ten years ago it was a huge burden to be able to reach a representative group to bring about sound conclusions. But now, everything is interlinked, and it is just a matter of two clicks on the screen - even no need for human interaction. Since it is more convenient and affordable for companies to reach people, the surveys are more comprehensive and more enlightening anymore. In the light of this fact, one can surely ask whether the interviewees ten years ago represented a determinant sample? For example how many bicyclists were questioned for the survey? If one of these conditions are true, the persuasiveness of the author is diminished significantly.
Furthermore, the writer mistakenly correlates two different types of helmets- one created ten years ago, one high tech. Perhaps helmets of ten years ago were not even that helpful compared to the new ones when it comes to collusions and accidents thanks to the opportunities created by technology. Nowadays helmets are not only more effective during collusions but also more technological. They are lighter, more durable and most importantly more affordable. This may be the main reason under the fact that people are using such equipments. The author also should consider this reality when driving conclusions.
In addition, the author assumes that the number of serious accidents related to the bicycles is much more higher nowadays than ten years ago. Human beings created such a world that everything is intertwined now, so that, when one accidents occurs it is just a matter of a couple of minutes job for the police to learn about it. In this case, of course reporting is inescapable. Was it the same ten years ago? It was not that hard to hit and run and never be found. But now, there are security cameras all over the streets and main roads, there are collusion detector systems on the roads that inform police momentarily. As seen, the author should consider above to be able to reach a sound conclusion.
Overall, the author leaves too many questions unanswered and thus, is less likely to persuade the readers of the memo.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 471 350
No. of Characters: 2320 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.659 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.926 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.779 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.84 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.254 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.56 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.273 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.447 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 265, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...lusion based on several premises, which if correct, could indicate that the argume...
^^
Line 1, column 323, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...indicate that the argument holds water. However before the conclusion can be adequately...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 102, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'higher' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: higher
...cidents related to the bicycles is much more higher nowadays than ten years ago. Human bein...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 227, Rule ID: ONE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use the numeral 'one' with plural words. Did you mean 'one accident', 'an accident', or simply 'accidents'?
Suggestion: one accident; an accident; accidents
...thing is intertwined now, so that, when one accidents occurs it is just a matter of a couple ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, thus, for example, in addition, of course
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2387.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06794055202 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86960386893 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515923566879 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 761.4 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9786493653 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.48 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.84 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.48 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.140636839844 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.043215989069 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516989202606 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0744868812255 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03560508056 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.