“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, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.”
The Commission written the memo in order to conclude the reason behind the accidents of bicycle riders. However, it relies only on the single explanation.
Apart from the explanation given by the author, it is likely that the reported accidents during the last ten years are from those who did not wear helmet. To substantiate, if the accidents happened ten years ago were 100 in number and in fact, these are from 65% people who didn't wear the protection. Then, at the end of the time interval these numbers jumped to 300 and that too from 20% of people without the head protector because the total users of bicycles increased many more times in order to justify this point. If that was the case, then, it can be concluded that the main cause of the accidents is still be the habit of not wearing a helmet. Hence, refutes the writer's claim.
Besides, there is one more possibility in which there is a chance that during the time span traffic had been increased enormously on the city roads. Might be the administration had not separated the bicycle lane from the lane of automotive vehicles. Due to the rise in congestion of vehicles on the roads, bicycle riders did not get enough space for their safe passage. Indeed it is possible that this opinion was not considered by the local survey about which the memo do not mention the contents of the questionnaire put forward by the surveyers to the riders. If they just asked the question about safety due to helmets then clearly they did not take the traffic congestion on the roads. In these conditions, the conclusion does not seem plausible.
Moreover, There seems a doubt on the studies and the surverys mentioned in the argument about the sample size they took. Without knowing exact representation of the sample, it is hard to conclude anything about the matter. The shrinked samples may lead the reader in wrong direction. Thus, the Commission need to mention about the size and authenticity of the surveyers to believe on their facts.
Therefore, the commission need not to conclude on the matter without exploring other possible reasons. May be the real cause is the only one mentioned in the statement but with the given data any good judge can interpret different reasons. The author should consider to constitute a committee of relevant experts to cross check the data cited in the surveys and to know any other real cause.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 1932 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.655 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.477 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.74 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.272 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 275, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... in fact, these are from 65% people who didnt wear the protection. Then, at the end o...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 615, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...he main cause of the accidents is still be the habit of not wearing a helmet. Henc...
^^
Line 5, column 371, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...et enough space for their safe passage. Indeed it is possible that this opinion was no...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 564, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...forward by the surveyers to the riders. If they just asked the question about safe...
^^
Line 5, column 577, Rule ID: ASK_THE_QUESTION[1]
Message: Use simply 'asked' instead.
Suggestion: asked
...e surveyers to the riders. If they just asked the question about safety due to helmets then clearl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 36, Rule ID: NEEDNT_TO_DO_AND_DONT_NEED_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'conclude'?
Suggestion: conclude
.... Therefore, the commission need not to conclude on the matter without exploring other p...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 108, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (May) must be used with a third-person verb: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...t exploring other possible reasons. May be the real cause is the only one mentione...
^^
Line 9, column 259, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[3]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'consider constituting'.
Suggestion: consider constituting
...et different reasons. The author should consider to constitute a committee of relevant experts to cros...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, thus, apart from, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1984.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 414.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.7922705314 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54280721153 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512077294686 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.595851825 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.122084268437 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310295496418 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534748544722 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0527360146495 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0698521264504 0.0628817314937 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => 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: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.