Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating 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 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.
The author of the prompt tries to bolster his argument in favour of investing in high grade protective equipment for rollerskaters by claiming that hospital statistics indicate that 75% of the people reporting to the emergency room post an accident either in the streets or parking lots are devoid of protective gear or reflecting equipment. He also claims that there will be a significant reduction in the number of rollerskating accidents if the above investment is made. Accident numbers can reduce if protective gear is worn judiciously. However, the author’s argument is replete with errors in logic and does not hold water.
To begin with, the statistical study is bereft of authenticity. There is no mention about the number of people the survey was conducted on, the area it was conducted in, etc. for instance, hilly areas with rougher terrain are prone to more friction and hence can cause more accidents that flatland areas. Weather conditions also affect the occurrence of accidents, which increase during rains and foggy conditions. Apart from this, a large group of people are aware about the consequences of skating without any protection and are educated enough to be safe and sound while doing so. They can be visiting the emergency rooms for small cuts and bruises that occur generally due to tripping or falling during the learning process as well. This does not really give a strong indication of the lack of donning protective gear.
It is a well known fact that it is quite dangerous to be skating on streets and in parking lots and requires the usage of protective gear. All of the rollerskating accidents occurring are not solely the skater’s fault. Rash driving, not abiding by traffic regulations, speeding and misjudgement of drivers cause a major portion of said accidents, irrespective of the fact that whether the person is wearing protective gear or not. That being said, in order to reduce the occurrence of such accidents it is always safer to skate in designated skating zones or skating rinks and to be extremely cautious whilst skating on roads and parking lots. The need of the hour is to make stricter traffic rules, invest in more sign boards and stop signs, illuminating parking lots and creating more skating zones in neighbourhoods.
The overall scenario points toward a lack of education and the brevity of the situation is not being understood. Amateur skaters are not experienced enough to be skating on streets and parking lots, there are designated areas for them to learn and practice in, before they can venture out into the streets. Rollerskating banks on balance and the terrain of roads are not suitable for learning. The professionals are careful enough and experienced when it comes to street skating. Protective gear is no misnomer among the skating population.
In conclusion, it can be true that there is a need of investing more in protective gear and light reflecting equipment but the author needs to provide additional details regarding the statistics, the need for protective gear solely to prevent accidents, the number of skaters getting admitted in order for his argument to hold merit.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2587 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.965 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.736 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.81 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.612 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.451 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 681, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and bruises that occur generally due to tripping or falling during the learning ...
^^
Line 5, column 140, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
... requires the usage of protective gear. All of the rollerskating accidents occurring are n...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 542, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... misnomer among the skating population. In conclusion, it can be true that there...
^^^
Line 8, column 196, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tional details regarding the statistics, the need for protective gear solely to p...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, really, regarding, so, then, well, while, apart from, as for, for instance, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2647.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08061420345 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80070682578 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 260.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499040307102 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 811.8 705.55239521 115% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.4802680759 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.318181818 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6818181818 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13636363636 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249863590886 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0674268535638 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0611098907558 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143562788655 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0572460755024 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.