Argument essay:


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 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.




My response:


The author assumes that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment will certainly reduce the risk of severely injured in an accident. After reading on the reasons provided by the author, the argument was marred by a mass of superfluous details and it depends on a few stated and unstated assumptions which may or not justify the author's assumptions.

At first, the author stated that, according to the hospital statistics, those who went to the emergency department after roller-skating accidents were due to lack of protective equipment. The author assumes, according to the hospital statistics, that the reason for roller-skating accidents was due to lack of protective equipment and did not provide other possible cause of roller-skating accidents. If there are other factors that should take in considerations, such as bad weather, low awarness about the safety of roller-skating and road conditions of roller-skating, then, the author assumes that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment will decrease the risk of injury may not be proven warranted.

Apart from that, the author had cited from the statistics that 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.). However, the author fails to address whether those involved in the accident was the roller-skater or is the pedestrian. If those involved in the accident was the pedestrian, then, it may not be feasible for them to wear protective clothing or any light-reflecting material. Perhaps, the author needs to provide more specific evidence to indicate the actual percentage of those who involved in the accident. If there are higher percentages of roller-skater who are involved in the accident, then it may be plausible to invest on high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment.

Besides this, the author also makes an assumption that roller-skater needs to invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment. The author assumes that those roller-skaters had been wearing protective gear and reflective equipment while skating. However, the author did not provide more information about the quality of protective gear and reflective equipment. If those involved in the accident did wear a good-quality of protective gear, then, it would not be beneficial to purchase high-quality reflective equipment and protective gear. The author needs to gives more concrete evidence to support his arguments about purchasing excellent quality reflective equipment.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis regarding the statistics of roller-skating accidents conducted by the hospital. If the author can provide more detailed analysis of statistics such as the percentage of injury due to lack of awareness, those who did not wear protective gear, road accident etc. in order to make his conclusion sounded.