又有几天没写作文了，argument求点评

杨姝云

题目：

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room afterroller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment.Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streetsor parking lots had not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, kneepads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-darkwrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the statistics indicate that by investing inhigh-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, roller skaters willgreatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstatedassumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends onthese assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if theassumptions prove unwarranted.

==============================================================================

字数：570

==============================================================================

While it might be true that some investment in high-quality protectiveequipment for roller skaters will reduce the injuries from accidents, theauthor of this argument doesn't make cogent inference to validate it. We caneasily tell that roller-skating accidents are a problem facing to our city, butthis argument if rife with holes and weak assumptions. As for assumptions, ifwe take a close look at it, we can find that much evidence the author providesis quite unconvincing.

The author cites the fact that most of people who go to emergency roomafter roller-skating accidents are unprotected from safety equipment. Theassumption which it bases on is that all, at least most, of the people afterthe accidents go to emergency room in the hospital. However, it's quite likelythat many people equipped with protective stuffs don't go and see doctors, andin the contrary, people free from protections are more tend to see doctors. Ifthis happens, the author's argument will be severely undermined. Opponents ofmy idea will argue that the author's point could be correct because it's morelikely that people who suffer more from accidents will go to emergency room. Asa result, even if equipped people meet an accident, they might just get a lightinjury and they don't need to go to the emergency room. This of course makessense, but the situation in emergency room doesn't mean they injure less. Maybethose who go to emergency room just happen to have the accident at night. Theauthor's explanation only holds if he/she also provides us the situation inoutpatients' section. Otherwise, the evidence isn't convincing enough.

Likewise, by saying that 75 percent of those who don't wear protectiveequipment have the accidents in streets or parking lots, the author wants toestablish a cause and effect between no equipment and accidents. Readers willask that whether those who injure more are hit by cars at a higher speed. As weall know, the speed of the car when the hit happens really matters. If most ofpeople without helmets or knee pads were hit by faster cars, the comparisonwill make no sense. To improve his/her argument, the author has to provideinformation indicating that all the wounded were in comparable situations toeliminate extraneous guess that will weak the argument.

Last, the author concludes that if we invest more in high-qualityprotective gear and reflective equipment, risk of being injured will besignificantly reduced. This conclusion isn't that clear and could be ridiculousin some situations. What if even we invest lots of money in those equipment butroller-skaters don't want to wear it? Moreover, it's also possible that withstate-of-the-art equipment, roller-skaters will be more careless when they areon the street. In this sense, the author's recommendation will not only have noeffect, but also lead to counterproductive result. Unless the author providesus more information about how high-quality protective gear and super-duperreflective equipment can guarantee roller-skaters' safety, weak assumptions inthis argument can make the argument lack of logic and persuasion.

A safe and peace milieu for roller-skaters is needed for the society, butwhether we can reduce possibilities for them to get injured by investing instate-of-the-art equipment still need to be evaluated. To make his/hersuggestion easier to be accepted, the author has to add more evidence and givesome explanations to validate it.

普渡哥

good job!