In this memo, the author claims that roller skaters have to wear protective clothing or any light-reflecting material in order to reduce their risk of severely injuries in an accident. To support this recommendation, the author cites the hospital statistics among people who visit the emergency room after roller-skating accidents, which indicate those great portion of accident victims (75 percent, in specific) without protective materials. Careful scrutiny reveals that this recommendation relies on several problematic assumptions that render it dubious.
Basically, the author hastily assumes that the usefulness or effectiveness of those protective equipment in reducing severe injuries can be judged by relative percentage from the hospital statistics between the non-wearers and the wearers. However, the visitors of the emergency room may not have a vital role in verifying the usefulness or effectiveness of those protective equipment in accidents. If the author cannot provide more specific information that reveals the impact of wearing the equipment to the skaters skating accident, this recommendation is controversial.
Similarly, this recommendation is still untenable in that it assumes that the visitors of the emergency room had to be injured severely in the accidents. It might be the case, however, there is no evidence to prove the severity of injuries of them. Perhaps most injuries of them might be classified not “severe injuries” but simple causes. Further, they also might visited because of other reasons unrelated to the accidents. If this is true, this recommendation might loses its ground.
Finally, this recommendation also relies on another assumption that the 75 percent in the statistics reveals that skaters should avoid “severe injuries” by simply wearing the protective equipment. However, it is possible that most of skaters in the region usually do not tend to wear the equipment, thus another group of the skaters (25 percent) did not only injured severely without the protective materials. Without ruling out this possibility, we cannot evaluate this recommendation properly.
To sum, this recommendation is poorly substantiated, thus fragile as it stands. To make it tenable, the author should provide more specific information about the effectiveness of the equipment in skating accidents and about what portion of the visitors of the emergency room who injured severely. To eliminate our confusions, we need to know that the trend of the skaters in the region whether they usually wear the protective equipment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 237, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the skaters') or simply say ''most skaters''.
Suggestion: most of the skaters; most skaters
...equipment. However, it is possible that most of skaters in the region usually do not tend to we...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 368, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'did' requires base form of the verb: 'injure'
Suggestion: injure
... of the skaters 25 percent did not only injured severely without the protective materia...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 297, 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.
...he emergency room who injured severely. To eliminate our confusions, we need to kn...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, similarly, so, still, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2191.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6323907455 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21581192381 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467866323907 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 693.0 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6038246839 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.882352941 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8823529412 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.76470588235 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.247209798264 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0792496545033 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854650920345 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149456416909 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740591940653 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.