Prompt:
"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.
Response:
The writer argues that the government should put more emphasis on educating
cyclists about bicycle safety rather than abouyt educating them on wearing prop
-er gear. In this arguement, the writer assumes that accidents are less likely
to occur if cyclists are more aware about cycling dangers and that education
on cycling gear has no effect in the reduction of bicyle related accidents.
The assumption is a supporting column for the writers arguement, however
the this support lacks details. The writer has not pointed out what exactly
caused the increased number of accidents. The increased
number of accidents can occur due to a multitude of reasons. For example, the
increased number of accidents can occur due to lack of general road safety. Car
, bus or other four-wheel transport drivers may not have been driving safely
or may not be following the law while driving, which can lead to an increased
number of acciednts. Another reason could be the lack of proper cycling lanes.
This may force cyclists to use footpaths or the main road and thus increase
the possiblity of an accident occuring. Given the lack of details, it can
be understood that the cyclists may already be adequately educated about
safety and that the increased number of accidents are occurring due to
other reasons.
Regarding the assumption about helmets, the writer has not pointed out how
proper gear does not lead to the reduction of the possiblity of accidents. Proper
gear significantly reduces the chances of grave and fatal injuries in the
event of what can be serious accidents. For example, if one properly geared cyclist
falls onto the pavement headfirst due to colliding with some unseen obstacle
he is much less likely to suffer from a serious concussion than a person who
does not wear a helmet. The previous case provides a valid statement as to
how helmets can reduce accidents.
The author may have a valid point. But, given the lack of details and the
weak bases upon which the writer supports his argument, it would not be wise
to implement his idea without carrying out a more detailed study of the issue
first.
"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.
Response:
The writer argues that the government should put more emphasis on educating
cyclists about bicycle safety rather than abouyt educating them on wearing prop
-er gear. In this arguement, the writer assumes that accidents are less likely
to occur if cyclists are more aware about cycling dangers and that education
on cycling gear has no effect in the reduction of bicyle related accidents.
The assumption is a supporting column for the writers arguement, however
the this support lacks details. The writer has not pointed out what exactly
caused the increased number of accidents. The increased
number of accidents can occur due to a multitude of reasons. For example, the
increased number of accidents can occur due to lack of general road safety. Car
, bus or other four-wheel transport drivers may not have been driving safely
or may not be following the law while driving, which can lead to an increased
number of acciednts. Another reason could be the lack of proper cycling lanes.
This may force cyclists to use footpaths or the main road and thus increase
the possiblity of an accident occuring. Given the lack of details, it can
be understood that the cyclists may already be adequately educated about
safety and that the increased number of accidents are occurring due to
other reasons.
Regarding the assumption about helmets, the writer has not pointed out how
proper gear does not lead to the reduction of the possiblity of accidents. Proper
gear significantly reduces the chances of grave and fatal injuries in the
event of what can be serious accidents. For example, if one properly geared cyclist
falls onto the pavement headfirst due to colliding with some unseen obstacle
he is much less likely to suffer from a serious concussion than a person who
does not wear a helmet. The previous case provides a valid statement as to
how helmets can reduce accidents.
The author may have a valid point. But, given the lack of details and the
weak bases upon which the writer supports his argument, it would not be wise
to implement his idea without carrying out a more detailed study of the issue
first.
