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 wear

The argument above is well-presented and
appears to be relatively sound at first glance:
because of the hospital statistics regarding people
who go to the emergency room after roller-skating
accidents, the roller skaters should investing in
high-quality protective gear and reflective
equipment in order to reduce their risk of being
severely injured in an accident. However, as more
light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts
are concerned, it is easy to see that the argument
suffers from several grave fallacies in its
assumptions as well as commits a false analogy.

To begin with, as mentioned in the argument,
there are two distinct kinds of gear—preventative
gear, such as light reflecting material, and
protective gear, such as helmets. Preventative
gear is intended to warn others, presumably for
the most part motorists, of the presence of the
roller skater. It works only if the “other” is a
responsible and caring individual who will afford
the skater the necessary space and attention.
Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of
any accident, whether it is caused by another, the
skater or some force of nature. Protective gear
does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is
presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an
accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by
skaters would be more interesting if the skaters
were grouped into those wearing no gear at all,
those wearing protective gear only, those wearing
preventative gear only and those wearing both.
These statistics could provide skaters with a
clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are
more beneficial.

In addition, the argument is much weakened
by the fact that it does not take into account the
inherent differences between skaters who wear
gear and those who do not. It is at least likely
that those who wear gear may be generally more
responsible and/or safety conscious individuals.
The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to
cause accidents through careless or dangerous
behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution
and responsibility that keeps them out of the
emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also,
the statistic above is based entirely on those who
are skating in streets and parking lots which are
relatively dangerous places to skate in the first
place. People who are generally more safety
conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such
as parks or back yards.

Moreover, the statistic also can not make
sense when come to the conclusion that safety
gear prevents severe injuries. The conclusion
suggests that it is presumed that people come to
the emergency room only with severe injuries. This
is certainly not the case. Also, given that skating
is a recreational activity that may be primarily
engaged in during evenings and weekends when
doctors’ offices are closed, skater with less severe
injuries may be especially likely to come to the
emergency room for treatment.

Last but not least, there is absolutely no
evidence provided that high quality gear is any
more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For
example, a simple white t-shirt may be easily
catched by others’ sight that provide the same or
even more preventative benefit as a higher quality,
more expensive, shirt designed only for skating.
Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily
in gear, a more complete understanding of the
benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would
be helpful.

Overall, the argument is far from forceful
enough to persuade the roller skaters should invest
in high-quality protective gear and reflective
equipment in order to reduce their risk. Before any
final decisions are made about whether the roller
skaters should invest in high-quality protective
gear and reflective equipment, much work is left
for the arguer to do to make his/her argument
more logical and cogent.