"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of accidents caused by bicycling has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety."
While it may be true that number of bicycle accidents has increased 200 percent, the author augument dosen't make a cogent case for an education program that focuse on different aspects of saftey other than the halmet. It is easy to understand that the number of people wearing helmet has increased 80 percent, the author's atgument is rife with holes and assumption and it is very unlikey to persuade the reader.
Citing the results of the study, the author states that over the period of ten years, the accident rate has increased 200 percent. It is not clear, however, the scope of the validity of the survey. The author has assumed that the survey that was done ten years ago may not have covered all the accidents that took place, resluting into a lower accident rate. It is also possible that ten years ago people may not be active enough the report accidents. This may, in turn, increase the gap between the current accident rate and old accident rate. The survey must be representing the entire population, valid, and methodical to in order to back the author's argument.
Building up on the implication of wearing the helmet, the author states that it might make riders feel more safe and lure to take more risks. However, the numbers given in the argument represents the percentage increament and not the acutal increament. In ten years, a country's population can increase by a large number. The author has assumed that the number of bicycle ridres has also assumed by the same proprotion. The absense of the exact number makes the data less raliable.
Additoinally, the author has not mentioned what type accidents have been increased. It may be the case that the people riding other vehicles have become more careless and may have met with an accident with the bicycle riders. It has been assummed that all the bicyle accidents re caused by the bicycles rider's fault and not due to the other person's fault. The inforamtion about the type of accidents is missing from the argument.
A safe, pollution free medium to commute from one place to another such as the bicycle is always a desireable for the growth of country. The organization of an education camp will immensly benifit the citizens of the country. However, the author's author argument to focus on the medius other than the helmet is less likely to convince the reader. With the added points such as the validity of the survey and types of accidents will bolster the argumet.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
Thus, there is clearly a call for the government to strive to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents by launching an education program that concentrates on the factors other than helmet use that are necessary for bicycle safety.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 424 350
No. of Characters: 1985 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.538 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.682 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.365 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.346 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.521 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 647, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... and methodical to in order to back the authors argument. Building up on the implic...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 431, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...accidents is missing from the argument. A safe, pollution free medium to commute...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, so, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2033.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8061465721 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43171300773 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468085106383 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.8839018099 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.8095238095 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.0 5.70786347227 35% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.16521490173 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0487220881938 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518739404521 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0922135138438 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0523057113196 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.