The argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on unwarranted assumption that protective gear and reflective equipment will reduce the risk of injury. Taken as a whole, this unstated assumption render the argument highly suspect. If the mentioned assumption do not hold true, then the argument totally falls apart.
Firstly, the argument states that people who come to the hospital and go to the emergency room are more roller-skating accidents. The author mentions information of a particular hospital, we cannot assume that all hospitals have more roller-skating accidents. It is possible that the area near that hospital might be underdeveloped, and condition of the roads is not good, there might be lot of potholes which cause accidents.
Secondly, the author says that within the group of roller-skating people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing like helmets, knee pads, etc. It is possible that more number of vehicles are moving on the road as before. The author fails to mention any information about the nearby area and condition of that area. The author provides one sided information and assumes other information.
Thirdly, the author assumes 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. It is possible that people in different areas might not wear these high-quality equipments and they are totally safe. Again, an asserted claim. Careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provide little credible support for the author's conclusion in several critical respects and raises several skeptical questions.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. Without convincing answers to some questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. To bolster it further, the author should provide a concrete evidence by way of reliable survey.
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: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 328 350
No. of Characters: 1730 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.256 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.274 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.794 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.587 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.294 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ore roller-skating accidents. The author mentions information of a particular hos...
^^
Line 7, column 426, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...provide little credible support for the authors conclusion in several critical respects...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ptical questions. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1778.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 328.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42073170732 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25567506705 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87367252026 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.576219512195 0.468620217663 123% => OK
syllable_count: 549.9 705.55239521 78% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.2836813292 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.7777777778 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2222222222 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.27777777778 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249795644945 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0642642240556 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115143636726 0.0701772020484 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119344750842 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103070753321 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.