In the memo, the author concludes that since 75 percent of the people who were injured in roller-skating accidents did not use any protective gear or reflective equipment, investment in high-quality protective clothes and reflective equipment will decrease the risk of being extremely injured in accidents for roller-skater. Nonetheless, while the conclusion drawn by the writer might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the mentioned statistics are drawn from the injured people in only one hospital. Maybe that hospital is located in the inner city where most people do not pay attention to protective stuff. Not only the roller-skater but also the bikers may usually not use protective things in these areas since they think they are seemed bolder in the eye of other people if they do not use these stuff. It is possible that if the same survey were conducted in the other areas of the city, the result would be the opposite. If this scenario has merit, the author's assertion that based on the statistics at this hospital, more investment in better quality protective equipment results in fewer injured people is significantly hampered.
Secondly, producing better quality protective equipment does not persuade people to use them who are already reluctant to do so. Perhaps, it is better to compel roller-skaters to use protective equipment in another way. For example, the police can issue tickets to those people who do not use defensive stuff. Therefore, producing higher-quality equipment does not warranty that people will use them. The writer's argument does not hold water if the above is true.
Finally, people may not wear protective equipment due to their high cost. So, producing higher-quality equipment leads to higher prices of this equipment, and even more people might become hesitant to buy those stuff and use them. It is possible that if the government allocates some money to this portion and offers free equipment to all roller-skaters, more people will wear them. If it is true that people's reluctancy toward wearing protective gear is due to its high price, the credibility of the writer's claim decreases substantially.
To sum up, it is possible that investment in producing high-quality protective equipment results in fewer injured roller-skaters. Nevertheless, as it stands now, the argument relies on three groundless assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Therefore, the author has to provide additional evidence on three fronts: the result of the same survey that is conducted on other hospitals throughout the city, whether offering higher-quality equipment is adequate to encourage people to use them, and the impact of the price of protective gear on people's resistance toward buying them.
- Claim The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models Reason Heroes and role models reveal a society s highest ideals
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives Use specific reasons and examples to su 73
- CLAIM Young people s tendency to make extensive use of portable devices like smartphones and tablets has hurt their development of social skills REASON These devices encourage users to form artificial personalities and relationships online rather than ful 83
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The opinions of celebrities such as famous entertainers and athletes are more important to younger people than they are to older people 71
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o 82
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2387 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.223 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.996 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.223 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...posite. If this scenario has merit, the authors assertion that based on the statistics ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 406, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...warranty that people will use them. The writers argument does not hold water if the abo...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, as to, for example, first of all, it is true, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2441.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34135667396 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04592042037 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4704595186 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 766.8 705.55239521 109% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.2737319489 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.473684211 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0526315789 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.31578947368 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 0.28907954096 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0963972222426 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066648555337 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175373369541 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0447956234882 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => 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: 13.99 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.