A memo made public by the Welzaton City Commission argues that an increase in the popularity of helmet use has caused a rise in the number of accidents. The commission came to this conclusion based on the surveys conducted. However, certain assumptions have been made in the argument that needs to be evaluated to determine the validity of the argument. Three questions need to be answered.
First, are the present conditions of Welzaton City roughly the same as they were ten years ago? It might be a possibility that the area witnessed an increase in the population and hence the amount of traffic on the roads. With more cars traveling from one place to the other, the chances of accidents become higher. It can be a possibility that with the increase in the number of people, the proportion of young drivers increased dramatically. These individuals generally have less experience and can be expected to cause fender benders. If this is true, then the authenticity of the argument will be dramatically weakened.
Second, is the information provided by the surveys legitimate? It might be possible that the method of collecting information was not scientific. The data collected might constitute a sample that is not representative of the entire population of the bikers. It is also possible that the questions were framed in such a manner to produce biased results. If these conditions are true, then the argument does not hold water.
Third, does ‘feeling safer’ necessarily promotes carelessness on the road? It might be possible that bikers who used helmets used sidewalks for commuting. People who are concerned with safety definitely will not want to jeopardize their health by overlooking safety rules. This beats the purpose of using the helmet in the first place.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is significantly flawed given the unwarranted assumptions the author has made. If more evidence is provided, perhaps using the information from a systematic scientific study, the validity of the argument can be greatly improved.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 335 350
No. of Characters: 1678 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.278 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.009 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.867 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.952 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.251 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.27 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.026 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, look, second, so, then, third, in conclusion, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1734.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 335.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17611940299 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95032610874 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534328358209 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.7182537033 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 82.5714285714 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.9523809524 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0871575215438 0.218282227539 40% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.025661442871 0.0743258471296 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457172932924 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0472369728247 0.128457276422 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0368894722173 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.