Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of the argument claims that there is need for more protective equipment to reduce the roller-skating accidents. To buttress his/her argument, the author cites the following evidences: Hospital statistics shows that 75 percent of those had accidents in streets or parking lots has not been wearing any protective clothing or light-reflecting material. Hence, by investing those equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce the risk of injury. Tough the issue has its own merit, due to lack of relevant evidences and unaddressed assumptions, the conclusion is unsubstantiated and flawed.
To begin with, the report from hospital statistics does not necessarily indicate the direct inverse relationship between accidents in roller skating and the usage of protective equipment. Even if 75 percent of those in accidents were not been protective, we are not given the detailed description of injuries. If the sample size might be too small, the percentage cannot tell the full story. The memo only provides the statistics of emergent room, how about other ways of curing? Perhaps multiple people choose to treat with family doctors, instead of visiting emergency in the hospital, then the result is not representative. It is likely to that those who visit family doctor are consisted of large proportion of injured wearing protective equipment, then the equipment might not be useful.
What's more, many other factors leading to the injury remain unexamined. For example, if the most of these people who got injured are beginners to roller skating, then main cause should be their skill instead of protective equipment. It is plausible that even though all of them were high-quality protective gear, because of their unsophisticated skill and technique, the percentage of accidents stay the same. The accidents, in addition, take place in street or parking lots, which are dangerous due to high volume of cars. Injuries can be resulted from inattention of drivers or unsafe actions. Without excluding all other factors leading to the accident, it is fallacious to suggest the casual effect between accidents and protective equipment.
Moreover, investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment might not contribute to alleviating the risk of being severely injured in an accident. What if the risk is reduced by only one percentage? It is, thus, not convincing to advocate the usage of protective equipment. The source and credibility of statistics remain untested. It is possible that after wearing protective gear, roller skaters develop the illusion that they would not be injured seriously, so that become careless and engage in more perilous behaviors. In this case, more sever accidents actually will happen. The author also fails to states the potential harm owing to the light-reflecting material. Those like clip-on light perhaps will intervene the normal driving and cause negative effect on the city distribution. Wearing protective equipment is not the only effective way to reduce the injury. For instance, every roller skater need to take the training course and pass exams to get the certificate to skate. Courses and tests can make them realize the significance of safety and be more cautious.
To sum up, as it stands, the conclusion is based on several problematic assumptions that curtail the credibility of argument. To further strengthen the validity, the author is suggested to include the evidences as follows: first, the detailed report of every patient in the accidents and the main reason of their injury should be provided; second, the author should give the results and comparison due to the use of protective equipment, probably by precise investigation from experts; finally, the statistic offered in the memo is persuasive and the risk can be indeed reduced a lot.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 603 350
No. of Characters: 3146 1500
No. of Different Words: 296 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.955 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.217 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.843 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 248 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 188 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 134 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 94 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.754 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.63 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.266 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.439 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 383, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this equipment' or 'those equipments'?
Suggestion: this equipment; those equipments
...eflecting material. Hence, by investing those equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 598, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...onclusion is unsubstantiated and flawed. To begin with, the report from hospita...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 2, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...the equipment might not be useful. Whats more, many other factors leading to the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 748, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ween accidents and protective equipment. Moreover, investing in high-quality prot...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 245, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'advocating'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: advocating
...percentage? It is, thus, not convincing to advocate the usage of protective equipment. The ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 624, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'state'.
Suggestion: state
...y will happen. The author also fails to states the potential harm owing to the light-r...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1093, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ificance of safety and be more cautious. To sum up, as it stands, the conclusi...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 588, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd the risk can be indeed reduced a lot.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, hence, if, moreover, second, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3269.0 2260.96107784 145% => OK
No of words: 600.0 441.139720559 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44833333333 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94923200384 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05668620495 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 306.0 204.123752495 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 1020.6 705.55239521 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 101.29028691 57.8364921388 175% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.208333333 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.08333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.321270749822 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0810916400228 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0615286502869 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177935746675 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0718480044248 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.63 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.