9. 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
According to two studies, the author deposits that the reason for the increment of accidents by bicyclists is for the sake of security and safety sense appear by wearing the hamlet. Furthermore, he purposes that the government should implement an educational base to solve this issue instead of wearing a helmet. This assertation is based on a series of vague and shaky assumptions; thus, the conclusion is also doubtful. The following paragraphs will list these unwarranted surmises.
This first striking problem is about the hypothesis which is based on the existence of a link between the two studies. There is no clue that these two surveys are correlated and merely similarities among them are the duration of them. For instance, if the first study which focused on helmet wearing is conducted in a specific place such as A, but the second study about the increment of the accident is done in the city B; would be logic to link these two studies and assumed that the first study is the cause of the second study? Maybe in city A, during these ten years, the reported accidents have been declined. Or there is a possibility that the helmet wearing trend has not been a privilege in city B at these ten years. Both conditions cogently represent the shakiness of these surmises.
Even both studies had been done in the identical place with the same case studies, there is another issue with this newsletter. Indeed, it is unconvincing since it underestimates the other accident causes. The writer assumes that the safety of wearing a helmet makes bicyclist careless, there is no comprehensive clue that the accidents are because of the wearing helmet. The first parameter which should be listed in this letter is the type of accidents, whether it is an accident between the bicyclist and cars or bicyclist and the city elements such as a tree. For instance, if the type of accident is the crash between the car and bicycle, there is a feasibility that the incident occurs for the sake of a car driver’s carelessness. Without finding the type and cause of the accident, blaming the bicyclists for their carefree riding is not fear.
Finally, according to all these questionable and faint surmises, the letter purposes the implementation of education for trending the safe bicycling instead of wearing a helmet. At this step, even the above-mentioned surmises are approved by the satisfied backing evidence and reasons, there is no guarantee that the proposed method would be effective. What if the punishment works quickly and effectively? Since, based on the prolonged duration of bicycling, people have ideas about the safe and secure riding and they overlook them for the sake of their convictions. In this scenario, the monetary punishment could be more effective than the repetition of known information. As long as the author does not present data about the sufficiency of this proposed plan, it is doubtful.
To wrap it up, all the aforementioned issues and assumptions explicitly depict that this newsletter and its conclusion are unreliable. It could be provable if the author shows two studies were considered the same study group, the only cause of the accident is wearing the helmet, and education would be effective to have control over this problem.
| 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 |
- tpo 31.1 70
- tpo49-integ 85
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? In the past young people depended on their parents for making decisions. Today, young people are better able to make decisions on their own. 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? All university students should require to take history courses no matter what their field of study is. 73
- To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral standards.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to addre 30
Comments
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 545 350
No. of Characters: 2665 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.832 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.89 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.734 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.708 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.585 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.266 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, look, may, second, so, thus, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2733.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 545.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01467889908 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83169070408 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83165936446 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 244.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447706422018 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 867.6 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.3268784509 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.875 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7083333333 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91666666667 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => 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: 0.159030290934 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0453891126359 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494234212731 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0944435850369 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185533074473 0.0628817314937 30% => 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: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.