In this argument, the author proposes that the reason for the rise in accidents related to bicycles is that bicyclists wearing helmets are more likely to take risk. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that a study shows that the percentage of bicyclists wearing helmets have increased from 35 to 80. Moreover, the author indicates that the number of serious accidents involving bicycles also increased. In addition, the author claims that 75% of riders feel safer with a helmet. Nonetheless, the author should consider some alternative explanations to challenge the proposed explanations. Otherwise, the argument and the conclusive claim might be untenable.
To begin with, in the argument the proposed explanation is that the number of serious accidents involving bicycles increased two hundred percent proves that there is a significant rise in accidents. Nevertheless, alternative explanations could challenge this interpretation. It is possible that the proportion of accidence is deceased. For instance, bicycles have become more and more popular these years, so many people started to commute by bicycle to decrease their carbon footprint. As a result, bicycles on road increased four times than before. Despite the absolute amount of accidents increased, the proportion of accidents could be decreased in reality. Under such a scenario, these alternative interpretations exist to explain the facts in the argument, and then the argument could be readily debunked.
Furthermore, although there are indeed more accidents, the reason for the increment could be something else other than the risk taking of riders wearing a helmet. First, it could be a more dangerous environment for riders. For example, to improve traffic efficiency, many cities have heightened the speed limit of urban roads. In this case, as vehicles drive faster on the road, vehicle drivers and bicycle riders seldom have enough time to react properly during an emergency, so the possibility of accidents increased. On top of that, even if the context of riders remains the same, the helmet could have other negative effects instead of let riders feel safe. One could be it makes riders less flexible to turn their heads to observe the surroundings. It can lead to terrible consequences. These alternative explanations could challenge the author’s one and can also plausibly account for the fact presented in the argument.
Although the proposed explanations might justify the conclusion, the author should check some alternative explanations to challenge the proposed explanations. More considerations might be recommended to bolster the argument and the conclusion.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 409 350
No. of Characters: 2197 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.497 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.372 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.892 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.783 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.5 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.456 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, if, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, then, for example, for instance, in addition, as a result, to begin with, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2260.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 409.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.52567237164 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49708221141 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01270516605 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496332518337 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.7834107146 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.2608695652 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7826086957 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91304347826 5.70786347227 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.108528049363 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0328325652861 0.0743258471296 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.048003502657 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0675916069753 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061659284112 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.