125.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."
The conclusion of the originator's argument, that persuade the government to focus more on bicycle safety but less on helmets requirement, is resulted from a vague comparison between two studies concerning bicycles. While the author asserts several evidence as his base of reasoning, such deduction is still rife with holes and easily be challenged by other explanations. Thus, if more evidence could be cited, the argument from the writer should be supported.
Firstly, the writer begins with a statement that the cause of higher risk is the increasing rate of helmets wearing, which makes people more confident to take higher risky moves. Here, the comparison of the two studies' result is not fair. Because no details of the two studies are shown in the passage, such as research purview, sample size, conducting date and so on. Begin with research purview, the first study author mentioned is a country-range study, whereas the second's type is not given. Thus, it is unclear for us to compare the two if the latter one is a regional study, let alone undercut the former one by using another. The second pertains to sample size, even though let us pretend the research range of them is the same, both national, the number of participants within these studies also influence the results as well. There are far more factors except the number of sample affect the research, such as the age, the living place and so forth. On condition that one of the two has 1000 participants from 10 cities, another has 1000 subjects from 5 cities, the conclusion will be so different, not to mention the situation when these variables are different to each other. Additional to it, although the aim date underlying studies is during a same ten years, no evidence are shown to prove that these researches were worked coincidently. Hence, they should have shared the same information source if had the two work all together, in fact, tiny differences among the material and statistics maintained in different time crash the credibility. Without taking enough tenacious evidence into account, the author's argument seems weak and fragile.
Secondly, after comparing, what is discussing now is that the originator of such newsletter draws a ramification that the government should concentrate more on safety rule education instead of mandatory requirement of wearing helmets. Here, perhaps the author readily posits that only reason for an increase in bicycle accidents is bicyclists' fault, but there are no germane study data could prove that, despite two studies in the passage are true. So what if the murderer of higher accidents is cars? If that is true, consequently, more education on bicycle safety did not work out, strongly questioning the author's opinion. The suggestions are that, on the one hand, carefully figure out the cause of accidents, and on the other hand, educate people to bike safely while keeping the helmets wearing regulation continue.
In a nutshell, the argument as the author stands in the passage is flawed due to the considerable paucity of solid evidence and several pieces of wishy-washy findings that are inaccurate. So the writer should cite wider evidence like information of two studies and statistics of accidents of bicycle-related.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-24 | Technoblade | 58 | view |
| 2023-06-06 | kalp98403 | 16 | view |
| 2023-04-07 | poiuy23567 | 66 | view |
| 2023-03-09 | dxy40747 | 68 | view |
| 2023-02-11 | HSNDEK | 63 | view |
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 58
- Some people believe that in order to be effective political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently c 54
- Governments should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development 50
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve 50
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did the 88
Comments
Yesterday got 1out of 6, now…
Yesterday got 1out of 6, now get 5?
Can’t believe ……
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'originators'' or 'originator's'?
Suggestion: originators'; originator's
The conclusion of the originators argument, that persuade the government ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 118, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'helmets'' or 'helmet's'?
Suggestion: helmets'; helmet's
...ocus more on bicycle safety but less on helmets requirement, is resulted from a vague c...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 241, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some evidence'.
Suggestion: some evidence
...ning bicycles. While the author asserts several evidence as his base of reasoning, such deductio...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t from the writer should be supported. Firstly, the writer begins with a statem...
^^^
Line 3, column 1618, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...gh tenacious evidence into account, the authors argument seems weak and fragile. S...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hors argument seems weak and fragile. Secondly, after comparing, what is discu...
^^^
Line 5, column 610, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... not work out, strongly questioning the authors opinion. The suggestions are that, on t...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... helmets wearing regulation continue. In a nutshell, the argument as the autho...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, still, thus, well, whereas, while, in fact, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2729.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 532.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12969924812 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75738681768 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 204.123752495 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520676691729 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 864.0 705.55239521 122% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8277910782 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.952380952 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3333333333 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.85714285714 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.104394901908 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.029447082495 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0284758604424 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0630036330713 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0305419475721 0.0628817314937 49% => 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: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.