The following appeared in a health newsletter.
"A ten-year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago, approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets, whereas today that number is nearly 80 percent. Another study, however, suggests that during the same ten-year period, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent. These results demonstrate that bicyclists feel safer because they are wearing helmets, and they take more risks as a result. Thus, to reduce the number of serious injuries from bicycle accidents, the government should concentrate more on educating people about bicycle safety and less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets."
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.
In this argument, the author suggests that government should focus 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. To support his argument, the author points out that the percentage of people wearing helmets rises from approximately 35 to nearly 80 during the last ten years, whereas the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent during the same ten-year period. However, this argument is full of holes and assumptions, which makes it not strong enough to reach the conclusion.
First of all, the author provides no evidence to show that there is a connection between wearing helmets and accident. No survey or data has indicated that those who wearing helmets take more risks than those who did not when riding a bicycle. It is unwarranted to assert that bicyclists wearing helmets feel safer. Common sense tells us that those who wear helmets are usually more concerned with their safety thus it is less likely that they will take more risks. Unless the author conducted a wide-ranged survey asking bicyclists whether they feel safer and are more likely to take risks when wearing helmets, the author cannot hasty draw the conclusion.
In the second place, the author fails to provide enough information about the accidents. We have got nothing about how many people wearing helmets got injured. If most of the injured people did not wear helmets, the author then cannot justify that wearing helmets make it more possible to get involved in an accident. Moreover, it remains unknown to us who should be responsible for these accidents. Maybe the accidents are caused by those who drove cars but not these bicyclists therefore it will be unreasonable to blame the bicyclists for the accidents.
In addition, the fact that the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent does not necessarily imply that the situation is worse. We do not know whether the accident rate increase or not. It is possible that there are an increasing number of people riding bicycle and consequently there will be more people injured. The author should refer to the accident rate to evaluate the current situation to make his argument more cogent.
In summary, although it is essential to educate people on bicycle safety, we cannot ignore the importance of wearing helmets. Despite its incapability to prevent accident, helmet does help to mitigate the seriousness of an accident. The author need to carefully look into the connection between accident and wearing helmets before he indiscreetly drew his conclusion.
I feel that I am attacking one point repeatedly, and I just cannot think of other examples or something to hit the argument.
Can you guys give me some suggestions? /:)
GRE Forum Archive
3 postsPage 1 of 1
- 1554651996
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:44 am
- 1554651996
- Forum Guests
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:44 am
Re: GRE argument evaluation
I made some modifications. Here is the new one.
In this argument, the author suggests that government should focus 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. To support his argument, the author points out that the percentage of people wearing helmets rises from approximately 35 to nearly 80 during the last ten years, whereas the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent during the same ten-year period. However, this argument is full of holes and assumptions, which makes it not strong enough to reach the conclusion.
First of all, the author provides no evidence to show that there is a connection between wearing helmets and accident. No survey or data has indicated that those who wearing helmets take more risks than those who did not when riding a bicycle. It is unwarranted to assert that bicyclists wearing helmets feel safer. Common sense tells us that those who wear helmets are usually more concerned with their safety thus it is less likely that they will take more risks. Unless the author conducted a wide-ranged survey asking bicyclists whether they feel safer and are more likely to take risks when wearing helmets, the author cannot hasty draw the conclusion.
Secondly, the author provides nothing about the validity and the scope of the study. We know are told nothing about who did the study, how was the study conducted, how were the data collected, or whether the researchers confirm the result of the study. Maybe the study is not scientific or neutral at all therefore the study cannot be representative. Lacking such information, the author cannot make a convincing argument based on the study.
Thirdly, the author fails to provide enough information about the accidents. We have got nothing about how many people wearing helmets got injured. If most of the injured people did not wear helmets, the author then cannot justify that wearing helmets make it more possible to get involved in an accident. Moreover, it remains unknown to us who should be responsible for these accidents. Maybe the accidents are caused by those who drove cars but not these bicyclists therefore it will be unreasonable to blame the bicyclists for the accidents.
What is more, the fact that the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent does not necessarily imply that the situation is worse. We do not know whether the accident rate increase or not. It is possible that there are an increasing number of people riding bicycle and consequently there will be more people injured. Even if the accident rate rises, there are still other reasons accounting for it. For example, the bicycles now may be designed to have a faster speed comparing to ten years ago; the increasing number of motor vehicles may be the partial cause of more accident. The author cannot simply concludes that the situation is worse without taking other factors into consideration.
In summary, although it is essential to educate people on bicycle safety, we cannot ignore the importance of wearing helmets. Despite its incapability to prevent accident, helmet does help to mitigate the seriousness of an accident. The author need to carefully look into the connection between accident and wearing helmets before he indiscreetly drew his conclusion. And his suggestion that government should concentrate less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets seems to go against our common sense.
In this argument, the author suggests that government should focus 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. To support his argument, the author points out that the percentage of people wearing helmets rises from approximately 35 to nearly 80 during the last ten years, whereas the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent during the same ten-year period. However, this argument is full of holes and assumptions, which makes it not strong enough to reach the conclusion.
First of all, the author provides no evidence to show that there is a connection between wearing helmets and accident. No survey or data has indicated that those who wearing helmets take more risks than those who did not when riding a bicycle. It is unwarranted to assert that bicyclists wearing helmets feel safer. Common sense tells us that those who wear helmets are usually more concerned with their safety thus it is less likely that they will take more risks. Unless the author conducted a wide-ranged survey asking bicyclists whether they feel safer and are more likely to take risks when wearing helmets, the author cannot hasty draw the conclusion.
Secondly, the author provides nothing about the validity and the scope of the study. We know are told nothing about who did the study, how was the study conducted, how were the data collected, or whether the researchers confirm the result of the study. Maybe the study is not scientific or neutral at all therefore the study cannot be representative. Lacking such information, the author cannot make a convincing argument based on the study.
Thirdly, the author fails to provide enough information about the accidents. We have got nothing about how many people wearing helmets got injured. If most of the injured people did not wear helmets, the author then cannot justify that wearing helmets make it more possible to get involved in an accident. Moreover, it remains unknown to us who should be responsible for these accidents. Maybe the accidents are caused by those who drove cars but not these bicyclists therefore it will be unreasonable to blame the bicyclists for the accidents.
What is more, the fact that the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased 200 percent does not necessarily imply that the situation is worse. We do not know whether the accident rate increase or not. It is possible that there are an increasing number of people riding bicycle and consequently there will be more people injured. Even if the accident rate rises, there are still other reasons accounting for it. For example, the bicycles now may be designed to have a faster speed comparing to ten years ago; the increasing number of motor vehicles may be the partial cause of more accident. The author cannot simply concludes that the situation is worse without taking other factors into consideration.
In summary, although it is essential to educate people on bicycle safety, we cannot ignore the importance of wearing helmets. Despite its incapability to prevent accident, helmet does help to mitigate the seriousness of an accident. The author need to carefully look into the connection between accident and wearing helmets before he indiscreetly drew his conclusion. And his suggestion that government should concentrate less on encouraging or requiring bicyclists to wear helmets seems to go against our common sense.
- tommywallach
- Manhattan Prep Staff
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:18 am
Re: GRE argument evaluation
Hey There,
Here's the deal on these, you need to outline until you have three separate flaws grounded in the text itself. DO NOT ATTACK FACTS (if there's a study, you accept the study). Attack the conclusions the argument tries to DRAW from those facts.
1) First of all, the 200% doesn't represent increased accident rates, because population growth/urban growth are way up. This could very well be a decrease in the accident rate. (You made this point, but it's a big one, and I'd start with it.)
2) Because of this, there's no reason to believe that people wearing helmets are taking more risks. We would want statistics on the RATE of accidents of both people who wear helmets and people who don't. If a greater percentage of helmet people have accidents than of non-helmet people, then we might be able to draw the conclusion about recklessness. (You almost make this point, but you don't hit the individual rates enough, and then you go off on a tangent about drivers which is irrelevant--accidents are accidents).
3) We have no evidence about how educating people affects accident rates. The author assumes that the improvement will be greater, but there's no reason to believe that. (You miss this point entirely, and it's a huge one. If you've left out a whole sentence of the prompt, go back to it and look for an assumption.)
Hope that helps!
-t
Here's the deal on these, you need to outline until you have three separate flaws grounded in the text itself. DO NOT ATTACK FACTS (if there's a study, you accept the study). Attack the conclusions the argument tries to DRAW from those facts.
1) First of all, the 200% doesn't represent increased accident rates, because population growth/urban growth are way up. This could very well be a decrease in the accident rate. (You made this point, but it's a big one, and I'd start with it.)
2) Because of this, there's no reason to believe that people wearing helmets are taking more risks. We would want statistics on the RATE of accidents of both people who wear helmets and people who don't. If a greater percentage of helmet people have accidents than of non-helmet people, then we might be able to draw the conclusion about recklessness. (You almost make this point, but you don't hit the individual rates enough, and then you go off on a tangent about drivers which is irrelevant--accidents are accidents).
3) We have no evidence about how educating people affects accident rates. The author assumes that the improvement will be greater, but there's no reason to believe that. (You miss this point entirely, and it's a huge one. If you've left out a whole sentence of the prompt, go back to it and look for an assumption.)
Hope that helps!
-t
3 posts Page 1 of 1