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 prompt states that the serious injury in case of roller- skating can be reduced to certain level with the investment on the protective equipment. Using protective gadgets during the perilous games is a good initiative towards safety , but inconclusive evidence by author does not effectively lead to credibility of the arguments.

The authors argument is solely based on the assumptions that using protective equipment will prevent the serious injury from roller- skating. There might be possibilities of injury even though with protective equipment—condition of road, skating park, condition of skate board, physical stability of person, traffic condition of skating road—that does not signify the author claim of protection by equipment. Perhaps the busy road condition might cause severe accidents even though the skater was fully equipped with protecting gadgets—high speed of vehicles might lead serious damage to internal organ impact—which also mislead the authors assumption of protection and safety guarantee by quality equipment.

In addition to the obscure first assumptions, author also overshadowed the possibility that although they use the reflecting bands and other equipment for safety, author completely discount the fact that the road drivers might be also the reason for the most of roller-skating related accidents. What if the roller-skater skates on the same road where novice driver drive their vehicle increasing the accidents numbers. Also, author also did not clearly mention the accidents numbers either on day or night specifically. Using light band at night only reflects for the drivers using headlights, the Collison of skaters on parked vehicles cannot be forbidden just using reflective-band: the accident number thus unavoidable despite using the proper “quality” protecting equipment as stated by authors.

Furthermore, author also based his argument on the assumption that increase in number of people who go to emergency room are grave injured. Perhaps, people with minor injury also might visit the emergency room either due to over-reacting parents or with plenty of wealth or wanted treatment faster, unlike normal thrift people. There might also possibility that the skater might be overwhelmed by the first accidents rather than the injury caused by roller-skate accidents, who is taken to emergency but not that big deal of injury occurred. The author completely underestimate and reach to the final conclusion without proper evidence and data, which evidently lead to the conclusion rife with flaws instead of facts.

At last, the improper, specious conclusion of the author based on unwarranted assumption is misleading with the possibility of with the proper safety equipment the risk of accidents reduce. Also, mere increasing of people visiting emergency indicating the increased in number of accidents by author without proper data is baseless.