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.
The article proposes that high quality protective gear and equipment would mitigate the number of severely injured accidents among roller skaters. However, diligent analysis of the argument shows that the opinion stated is unreasonable and flawed with multifold assumptions and gives raise to certain questions regarding statistical data and logical reasoning which would immensely undermine the belief. In order to be more convincing, the writer should have added adequate facts and data.
According to the author of the article, 75 percent of the skaters who got injured had not worn any protective guards for skating. The data mentioned in terms of percentage does not give any firm support without presenting the actual number of emergency cases and the number of accidents caused without any safety guards. 75 percent for a total number of 5000 would be considered as a serious issue but 3 among 4 constitutes the same proportion which is not a great number to prove that the injury is solely because of the lack of reflective and protective gear. Had statistical data been provided, that would have supported the argument profoundly.
Secondly, the article did not provide the reason for the accidents caused in the streets and parking lots, and whether did the accidents happened in the day or night. Perhaps, there could be a pothole in the centre of street which could have been invisible in the night and that caused the mishap. The 75% of the patients might be new to roller skating so they might have injured. The severity of injury in the remaining 25 percent is not mentioned. There is no investigation on how did the remain skaters who are well equipped got injuries. This obstructive co-relation does not make sense and undermines the credibility of the argument.
Finally, the author’s school of thought is to encourage roller skaters to use protective gears and reflective equipments in order to stay safe from accidents. Nevertheless, this might increase the number of accidents as the roller skaters with much belief that they are safe can perform risky stunts and might go fast which could lead to terrible accidents. Moreover, for those new people who wears protective clothing recently, it could be uncomfortable and even this could disturb their well balanced skating and might lead to severe injuries.
To recapitulate, the writer who penned this opinion has overlooked certain significant elements of a persuasive argument such as logical depiction, statistical data and unification of facts which made this argument a fallacy. Without firm evidence to endorse that lack of safety guard items caused the severe injuries and this would attenuate if high quality protective gear and reflective equipments are used and with several other flaws, this argument is untenable. Any answers to the questions proposed would greatly bolster the argument to an extent. Otherwise, the argument is not appealing to be incorporated by the roller skaters.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2447 1500
No. of Different Words: 229 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.109 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.66 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.672 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 138, Rule ID: DID_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean 'happen'?
Suggestion: happen
...ing lots, and whether did the accidents happened in the day or night. Perhaps, there co...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 489, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...d. There is no investigation on how did the remain skaters who are well equipped got injur...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2501.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22129436326 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74112337362 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490605427975 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 780.3 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.974256863 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.05 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.95 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.230394554495 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0665622817996 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0500099940835 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125140204659 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469145801863 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.