The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"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 bicycle-related accidents 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."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument reaches the conclusion that the government should concentrate more on bicycle safety education, as opposed to mandates on wearing helmets for bicyclists. This conclusion is based on the premise that an increase in helmet use did not lead to a decrease in bicycle-related accidents. However, the author of the argument makes three unstated assumptions, which, if found to be false, could dramatically affect the veracity of the argument’s logic.
First, the argument assumes that the efficacy of helmet use is contingent on the number of associated accidents. However, the author has provided no information on the exact severity of injuries in the accidents where citizens wore helmets. It may be the case that almost all of the past years’ recorded incidents led to minimal injuries, with helmets possibly preventing more death. If the author is able to provide evidence to show that the average severity and degree of casualties worsened over the past decade, only then can their argument be strengthened. In the absence of such evidence, as it stands now, there is a chance that evidence arises against this assumption, thus falsifying the argument’s logic.
Second, the argument fails to consider the exact findings of the second study. Furthermore, it makes the weak assumption that all other factors have stayed the same over the past 10 years, by attributing the increase in accidents to the helmets. It has assumed that bicyclists are feeling safer due to the increased usage of helmets, while providing no concrete evidence for the same. The study does not necessarily ‘suggest’ this claim, as stated by the author. It is possible that other road users are feeling safer, and hence are taking less precautions around bicyclists. It may also be the case that the conditions of the roads themselves have worsened over the years, hence leading to a climb in the number of bicycle-related accidents. If external factors like obsolete road infrastructure or inadequate maintenance of bicycle lanes are found to have affected the number of such casualties, then the author’s claims would not hold water.
Finally, the author of the argument assumes that safety education without mandated helmet use would be effective in curbing incidences of bicycle accidents. By providing no data to support the idea that such a measure would work better than compulsory helmets, the author is unable to assure us that the argument’s recommendation would work successfully, in solving existing issues. It is possible that a majority of drivers and cyclists already know about the necessary safety measures, and that on-road enforcement of rules has not been done. It may also be the case that education simply would not decrease the frequency of serious injuries; the author could have addressed this by, perhaps, pointing to the efficacy of such methods in sufficiently similar countries. Hence, the current form of the argument does not adequately justify that its proposal is the best solution possible, and that it will, indeed, lead to a safer road system.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed. By making the unstated assumptions discussed above, it jumps to conclusions without building upon strong, concrete evidence to back itself up. For the argument to be valid, the author would likely need to consult a comprehensive study of the road habits in the country, and explain, with certainty, the validity of their claims. Only with substantiative evidence can the argument be persuasive enough to move the government to accept the proposal made.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 578 350
No. of Characters: 2940 1500
No. of Different Words: 266 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.903 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.087 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.777 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 175 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.658 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 273, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...helmets. It may be the case that almost all of the past years’ recorded incidents led to m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 541, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun precautions is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...are feeling safer, and hence are taking less precautions around bicyclists. It may a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 84.0 55.5748502994 151% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3039.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 578.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25778546713 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90322654589 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90486696018 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 204.123752495 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482698961938 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 957.6 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3799446577 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.625 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0833333333 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54166666667 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0894289780515 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0280326796473 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383221346465 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0547786129309 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0312348015834 0.0628817314937 50% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.