The report as presented in the newsletter stated the outcome of two different study on the use of helmet by bicyclists. The first study showed that there was an increase in the number of bicyclists who use helmets over a 10-year period. The second study reported that the number of accidents has doubled with increasing use of helmet by bicyclists. The argument then concludes that in order to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should educate people on bicycle safety than encourage them to wear helmet. This argument is not logically sound as it fails to address certain issues thus assuming some critical points that needs to be elucidated.
One of such assumption is that the number of bicyclist is the same over time. Perhaps, the number of bicyclists have reduced over the years, or those who refuse to wear helmet has had injuries and thus had stopped the use of a bicycle. Another thing is that, the overall number of bicyclists might have reduced along the line, leaving those who use helmet to the use of bicycles. All of this needs to be made clear in order to help us evaluate if the implementation of the idea by the government will bring about any change.
In addition, the argument assumes that most or all those who attend the educating sessions will implement or heed to what they are being taught. Some of these bicyclists might just attend and not implement what is being taught. Those who have refused to use a helmet will probably not apply the safety rules being taught and thus making the educating session of none effect in the long run.
Lastly, the argument assumes that the bicyclists can be safe without the use of helmet if properly educated. The function of any automobile, including a bicycle is not predictable. It is possible that a bicyclist ensures safety while riding and still get injured. Perhaps, when the brake stops working, a spoilt tyre or even been hit by some other vehicles.
To sum up, the argument is not completely sound. The evidence provided in support of the conclusion does little to prove the conclusion because it made a number of assumptions as earlier stated. In order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to report the number of bicyclists recorded each year, how obedient the bicyclists are to rules earlier given and how safe they can be without the use of helmet.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 1928 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.691 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.449 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.371 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 239, 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.
...who use helmets over a 10-year period. The second study reported that the number o...
^^^
Line 1, column 351, 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.
...increasing use of helmet by bicyclists. The argument then concludes that in order t...
^^^
Line 3, column 388, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...e helmet to the use of bicycles. All of this needs to be made clear in order to help...
^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... even been hit by some other vehicles. To sum up, the argument is not completel...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, lastly, second, so, still, then, thus, while, another thing, in addition, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1978.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81265206813 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52628101615 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476885644769 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1383422692 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.105263158 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6315789474 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.214406477313 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697445416351 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584388618034 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120605740546 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066218198639 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.