The author releases two studies to demonstrate more bicyclists wearing helmet than ten years ago, which has triggered 200 percent increase of accidents. Based on these, the author recommends that government should launch an education program to reduce serious injuries from bicycle accidents. However, questions should be addressed, otherwise, this recommendation and the argument will readily be debunked.
The first question that should be coped with is whether there are increasing bicyclists during the past ten years. Although it offers 35 percent of all bicyclists report wearing helmet ten years ago, but now 80 percent, it is not sure that during these ten years bicyclists who wear helmets are aggrandizing. If the answer of this question is that the number of bicyclists in the former ten years has diminished, the assumption that the increase of bicyclists who wear helmets from 35 percent to 80 percent will be doubtful. Consequently, more bicycle accidents are not attributable to more bicyclists with helmet. To reinforce the feasibility of educational programs, the author vindicates the prerequisite of reasoning is correct that bicyclists with helmets have climbed in number.
Assuming the number of bicyclists with helmet is amplifying as the author speculated, whether 200 increase of accidents generated by bicycling is brought by more bicyclists with helmet is a crucial issue. If 200 increase of accidents caused by bicycling results from these bicyclists, cancelling to wear helmet and projecting educational program will be instrumental to reduce the number of bicycling accidents. However, if the answer of this issue is that chaotic traffic condition or drivers crash down the bicyclists with helmets cause more accidents, wearing helmets when bicycling is highly recommended rather than enact a new educational program, indicating that educational program does not work well to achieve reduction of accidents.
Lastly, to decide the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable, the author must ponder: Only by initiating an education program can it reduce the number of severe injuries when bicycling, which should be witnessed with more details. Will all bicyclists obey traffic laws by the education program? Won ’t be possible that some of them are in breach of traffic regulations and do not follow instruction of education program? Accordingly, this situation will result in more risk of accidents from bicyclists who are obedient to follow the instruction but no wearing helmet. Unless the author ensures no perpetrators of traffic laws exist, its recommendation of intensifying safety education will succeed. Otherwise, it will generate more dreadfully serious problems than before.
All in all, to reduce the number of accidents and alleviate the serious injuries from accidents, governments should consider various projects of mitigation. Education program might be a long-term but efficacious strategy to tackle this problem. However, the questions of whether bicyclists are increasing in number, the reasons behind increase of accidents related to bicyclists, and the efficiency of education initiative should be answered ahead of time.
- To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving th 89
- To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current trends will double over the next 50 years thus making existing dormitory space inadequate Moreov 61
- Evidence suggests that academic honor codes, which call for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeavors and to notify a faculty member if they suspect that others have cheated, are far more successful than are other methods at deterring che 72
- In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people. 79
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing 75
Essay evaluation report
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2659 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.449 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.924 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 230 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 96 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.594 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.556 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 280, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d with more details. Will all bicyclists obey traffic laws by the education progr...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2730.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59426229508 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00013436947 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426229508197 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.0 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.6146074816 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.5 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4 5.70786347227 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.260297711819 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0975726146447 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128868933671 0.0701772020484 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167002174841 0.128457276422 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.133920416498 0.0628817314937 213% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => 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: 15.44 12.5979740519 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.