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-the-dark 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 claims that the roller-skaters have to equip high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment to reduce the degree of injury in accidents. To support her argument, she cites a statistics which indicates that within the group of people, 72% of people had not been wearing any protective clothing or any light-reflecting material. This argument seems plausible first, however, careful scrutiny reveals that this argument has several logical problems.
To begin with, based on the survey which indicates the injured people had not been equipping protective clothing or light-reflecting material, the author wrongly assumes that the accidents for the people was result of lacking of those safe-guarding clothes. However, the real reason of accidents could not be in whether they had been wearing those clothes. For example, the lack of safety rule for roller-skating of people could be reason or because the group was roller-skating in streets or parking lots, not park, car drivers could be real reason. If this is true, we cannot be convinced by this argument.
Secondly, based on the survey which 75% of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing or reflecting materials, the author assumes that the 75% people can represent all roller-skaters. However, those people could not be common case of roller-skaters. For example, roller-skater who do not roller skating in parking lots or streets could well wear protective equipment. If she cannot explain why she thinks the group can be representative of all roller-skaters, this argument is not cogent.
Finally, based on the survey which indicates the injured people had not been equipping protective clothing or light-reflecting material, the author assumes that high-quality equipment is more efficient to prevent severe injuries. However, the quality of safety equipment could not be related to the degree of injuries. Common sense tells us that the safety equipment is minimal method for protecting oneself from dangerous situations. However, no matter how strong the equipment is, situation in which those equipment is helpless could occur. If she cannot rule out this problem, this argument is not cogent.
To summarize, this argument is still dubious as it stands. To make this argument more persuasive, the author has to explain why the group can be generalized and to give additional information which show the real reason of accidents. To evaluate better, we must know that the high-quality equipment is really helpful to reduce severe injuries
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 2131 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.236 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.924 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.184 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...result of lacking of those safe-guarding clothes. However, the real reason of acc...
^^
Line 9, column 40, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Secondly, based on the survey which 75% of those who had accidents in streets or...
^^
Line 13, column 503, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this equipment' or 'those equipments'?
Suggestion: this equipment; those equipments
...ng the equipment is, situation in which those equipment is helpless could occur. If she cannot ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 234, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hich show the real reason of accidents. To evaluate better, we must know that the ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, still, well, as to, for example, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2202.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41031941032 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01379170387 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.427518427518 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 657.9 705.55239521 93% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.3748303956 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.894736842 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4210526316 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284651505144 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0937459410168 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100013286062 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168777255411 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113452233855 0.0628817314937 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.