The argument to be analyzed is as follows:
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.
Write a response in which you examine the unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Within the argument presented there are a couple of unstated assumptions. One being that everyone who roller-skates has access to protective clothing. The argument depends on this assumption because by improving the quality of the protective clothing, it assumes that these people will be able to get the new gear, which will lead to reduced risk of injury through roller-skating accidents. However, if people do not have protective clothing available to them physically (in stores or through online shopping) or are not able to afford these protective clothing, this argument of improving protective clothing or light-reflecting material to decrease accidents, does not hold up. If people cannot get the equipment in the first place, improving the said equipment will not provide any change in the number of roller-skating accidents.
Another assumption within this argument, is that it's the roller-skater's fault that they are hit. By providing better equipment for the person roller-skating, it assumes that they are the ones at fault for being injured. However, it does not hold up because not every injury is due to another party not seeing the roller-skater (light-reflecting material). With protective clothing, that could be seen as the roller-skater's fault in every situation because they are aware that if they do not wear protective clothing there is a risk of them becoming injured. But when it comes to light-reflecting material, it assumes that the person is injured because they were not seen at night and that it is their responsibility to be seen by others. However, there are some situations where others will be injured due to not being seen by others, but the accident will occur during the daytime. This does not hold up to the argument because it assumes that most accidents when another party does not see a roller-skater happens only at night. When it is brought to attention that accidents may happen more frequently in the daytime, it doesn't really show any benefit for decreasing roller-skating accidents by improving light-reflecting material that is only useful at night.
A final assumption is that people who roller-skate will want to buy the new protective or reflective gear. The argument depends on this assumption because if roller-skaters want the new equipment, they will buy it, and lead to lower roller-skating accidents. However, if the roller-skater community doesn't see this as a problem, the number of accidents will not go down. If they have a mindset where they already have this equipment and they don't want to buy the new ones, then this argument will not hold up. Similarly, if the community thinks injury is a part of the sport, there will be no reason to buy the protective clothing in the first place. This further shows that improving the high-quality protective gear and reflective gear may not have a real effect on reducing the number of roller-skating accidents.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-02 | arjun2112 | 37 | view |
| 2019-11-06 | mehran_tgn | 52 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | Gaurav Singla | 82 | view |
| 2019-09-02 | yej | 75 | view |
| 2019-08-08 | zhage98 | 55 | view |
- The argument to be analyzed is as follows:Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents 63
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should 50
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 478 350
No. of Characters: 2386 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.676 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.992 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.995 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.561 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 50, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ssumption within this argument, is that its the roller-skaters fault that they are ...
^^^
Line 3, column 1123, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ppen more frequently in the daytime, it doesnt really show any benefit for decreasing ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 300, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...However, if the roller-skater community doesnt see this as a problem, the number of ac...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 443, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ey already have this equipment and they dont want to buy the new ones, then this arg...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, really, similarly, so, then, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 475.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15157894737 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0969959531 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.383157894737 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 752.4 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2254961446 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.789473684 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05263157895 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.15768463074 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.206790413111 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0857571830115 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483178578886 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154940661006 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0126324981413 0.0628817314937 20% => 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: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.