Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating
accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-thedark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the 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.
In this argument, the author concludes that roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being injured by investing in protective gear and reflective equipment, and the author use a survey to bolster the argument. However, it is still replete with a myriad of assumptions which could not suffice to back the argument.
Firstly, the survey that 75 percent of roller skaters in the emergency room had not been wearing any protective clothing or light-reflecting material is not warranted, because the people who are selected might not be representative of the whole general group. It is likely that many roller skaters who get injured in accident do not go to the emergency room because they can not afford the treatment fee or they may have personal doctors who can cure their injury. Therefore, to strengthen the survey, the author should provide additional survey on all the roller skaters who get injured in accident.
Secondly, the survey regarding people who had accidents in streets or parking lots is unjustifiable, because it does not involve places like roller skating rink or other places that are reserved for roller skaters. If roller skaters without protective clothes or light-reflecting equipment seldom get hurt in those places, and only 1 % of them are injured, this survey is not convincing. Thus, without another more detailed survey of people who get hurt in roller skating rink, it is difficult to access the merit of the incomplete survey.
Thirdly, the author assumes that roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident after wearing protective clothes and reflective equipment. But the assumption is indefensible. Perhaps people can still get injured wearing those equipment in very dangerous streets, and if they do not have sense of security and continue to chat while skating, they will still be hurt badly. In conclusion, in order to better bolster the assumption, I need more information about whether those roller-skaters have sense of security or not.
In a nutshell, the argument is unconvincing as it relies on several unstated assumptions. To justify it, we would need to demonstrate the survey and the place roller skaters skate. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been logically possible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1904 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.077 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.757 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.627 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 261, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this equipment' or 'those equipments'?
Suggestion: this equipment; those equipments
...ps people can still get injured wearing those equipment in very dangerous streets, and if they ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1960.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22666666667 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82644079044 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501333333333 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => 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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2739125929 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.666666667 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.2 5.70786347227 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
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: 0.271492986558 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.087278923533 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0797404880085 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14042502078 0.128457276422 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.082988495685 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.