argument 41

dedede1

It seems plausible, at first glance, to agree with the argument in a health newsletter that the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets in order to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents. However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to know a significant amount of additional information which all the assumptions based on, this argument could end up being much weaker than it seems or it could be quite valid.
       The first assumption of this argument is that the total number of people who used bicycle didn’t increase or didn’t increase dramatically 200 percent. Since the first study about helmets wearing use percentage as an indicator to tell how many percent of people wear helmets, the second study should also use percentage so that it is comparable to the first study to draw a conclusion about whether wearing helmets is useful or otherwise this argument assume that people who used bicycle didn’t increase 200 percent. So it is crucial for us to know how many percent of the total number of people who used bicycle has increased? If the total number of people who used bicycle didn’t increase 2 times, then the overall bicycle-related accidents has actually decreased and if this is the fact, it would certainly weaker this argument. However, if the total number did increase 2 times, then this argument could be quite valid.
       The second assumption of this argument is that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets. Since there are a lot of reasons that can make a bicyclist feel safer, for example the broader road, the better bicycle, it is not quite convincing to say bicyclists feel safer just because they are wearing helmets. So we need to know is there any evidences that can confirm this claim. If there were some victims of bicycle-related accidents who said that they felt safer because they were wearing helmets, then this argument would be certainly strengthened. If there is no valid extra evidence about it, then this argument would be weakened.
        Another assumption of this argument is that every bicycle-related accident hurts in the same degree. Perhaps wearing helmets can not stop accident from being happened, but wearing it could still be effective because it could ease the injury. So we need to know the changes in death rate of bicycle-related accidents to evaluate whether wearing helmet is effective. If the death rate has decreased for last ten years, then it means wearing helmet is effective so that it would certainly weaken the argument. However, the death rate could also has increased for last ten years and the argument would be strengthened.
      To sum up, it is important to know how many percent of the total number of bicyclists has increased, is there any evidences can confirm that bicyclists feel safer are because of wearing helmets and we also need to know the changes in death rate of bicycle-related accidents to fully evaluate whether wearing helmet is effective.      words 507 上次问了版主关于第一段的模板问题，可我觉得如果在第一段末再细化的话，会不会显得很罗嗦，说太久都没开始进入正题？

普渡哥

To sum up, it is important to know how many percent of the total number of bicyclists has increased, is there any evidences can confirm that bicyclists feel safer are because of wearing helmets and we also need to know the changes in death rate of bicycle-related accidents to fully evaluate whether wearing helmet is effective.  

分析分析这个句子的语法，一个长句如果长得不优美，就失去了长的价值。