"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author argues that the number of accidents are raising as people are not aware about the precautions that needs to be taken while riding bicycles. Furthermore, an education program needs to be conducted by the government in order to educate people about safety rules while riding bicycle. Stated in this way, the author failed to mention several factors on the basis of which the argument needs to be evaluated. To justify it further, the author needs to give more evidences which shows that the accidents are caused due to lack of knowledge about the safety precautions for riding bicycle safely.
First of all, the author mentioned that although the number of people wearing helmets rises from 35 percent to 80 percent, the number of accidents enhances to 200 percent. However, the exact number of people are not mentioned in the argument which makes data inadequate for the analysis. For example 35 percent and 80 percent could be a few people and hence it would be necessary to know the exact amount of pople who were riding bicycles and wearing helmets. Moreover, the author have claimed that the percentage of accidents caused raises to 200 percent in last 10 years but the author has not given any information about the past number of accidents. Suppose if the number of accidents caused in the past 10 years is one due to lack of bicycle riders, enhancing it to 200 percent doesn't make the information adequate. Thus instead of giving information in the form of percentage if the author had provided the exact number of accidents caused 10 years before, the argument could be analyzed more convincingly.
Secondly, it is necessary to know about the exact reason for accidents of bicycles. May be possible that the accidents caused due to damaged road or slippery track during rainy season. If that was the cause then it is the responsibility of the government to repair those roads and tracks not bicyclists. Moreover the author failed to provide more information about the accidents of bicycles with bikes and cars. Another possibility of accidents could be rash driving by the driver of bikes and cars. If that is the case, then the government should increase the safety by lowering the speed limit or enhancing the number of traffic police in the city. Or instead of educating those bicyclists, they should focus more on educating those bike riders and car drivers. Therefore, if the author had mentioned more information about the reason for those accidents, the argument could be evaluated in a cogent way.
Furthermore, some more information should be given by the author for extrapolating the areas in which most of the accidents occurred. For example, suppose there is a highway in the city where people like to ride bicycles and that highway has a low width, then definitely the accidents happen. So in this case if the width of highway is enhanced then it would definitely decline the number of accidents. Furthermore, accidents are caused in some hilly then some more safety needs to be provided by the government to decline the amount of accidents. For instance, the government could provide some signals or signs about the sharp turns or they can build a boundary around the roads to insure the safety of bicyclists.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author needs to provide better evidences either by the way of reliable survey about the cause of accidents of bicyclists. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more about the data in the form of number so that it can be compared and analyzed adequately.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. 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: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 615 350
No. of Characters: 2958 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.98 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.81 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.552 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 223 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.654 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.152 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.846 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 784, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...cle riders, enhancing it to 200 percent doesnt make the information adequate. Thus ins...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... those roads and tracks not bicyclists. Moreover the author failed to provide more infor...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 891, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a cogent way" with adverb for "cogent"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...idents, the argument could be evaluated in a cogent way. Furthermore, some more information ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ty of bicyclists. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 97.0 55.5748502994 175% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3022.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 614.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92182410423 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.977853291 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64492907678 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.374592833876 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 963.9 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.7232032564 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 116.230769231 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6153846154 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.19230769231 5.70786347227 126% => 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 : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.113012033093 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376076805896 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652037382949 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0629245078042 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0883381317512 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.