Task:
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 unstated assumptions of
the argument above
and
• explain how the argument depends on
the assumptions and what the implications
are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
-----------------------------
The report concludes 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. To justify this conclusion the report notes that 75% of people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents had not been wearing any protective equipment. Stated in this way the argument: (1)Reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning, and ill-defined terminology. (2)Fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument's conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First of all, the report's author readily assumes that by providing protective clothing - as helmets or knee pads - and light-reflecting materials -as clip-on lights or glow-in-the-dark wrist pads- to the roller-skating population, the roller skaters will greatly reduce their
risk of being severely injured. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, it could be the case that even with the use of protective clothing and light-reflecting materials, the roller skaters will still result injured due to the danger associated with skate acrobatics. Clearly, there is no clear connection between the use of protective materials and the decrease of injuries in the roller-skating population. The prior assertion could have been much clearer if explicitly stated this connection.

Secondly, the conclusion relies on the assumption that the data provided by the Hospital statistics is directly associated with severe injuries. In other words, it is not proved clearly how the 75% of the roller-skating population who had accidents and did not use protective materials was severely injured. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between the statistics and the risk, faced by the roller skaters, of being severely injured. To illustrate further, we could assume that in fact, this 75% corresponds to roller skaters who had only minor injuries. For that matter, the other 25% could correspond to roller skaters who used protective materials but still they were severely injured. If the author had provided evidence about the conditions of the injuries and his grade of severity experienced by the roller skater population referenced in the statistics.

Finally, the argument effortlessly takes for granted that the high-quality protective gear extant on the market can decrease greatly the severity of roller-skaters injuries. Yet, this assertion is considerably groundless. Let us consider the possibility that the high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment only differs from other alternatives, in the visual aspect, the style, and the price. For that matter, both the high-quality equipment and the most ordinary options for roller-skaters have similar characteristics in terms of protective capabilities. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

To sum up, the author's line of reasoning is flawed for the above-mentioned reason and is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened, if the author clearly provided all the relevant facts, perhaps by way of a more detailed analysis of the hospital statistics data and the conditions of the injuries associated with the roller-skater population who is the base for the data. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about the state of the art in the market of roller-skating protective equipment and the quality aspects associated with it. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.