Please critique my essay - Argument - Hospital statistics regarding people...

[Subhash_Ghosh]

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within this group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots were not wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light–reflecting material (clip–on lights, glow–in–the–dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskaters will greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The speaker wishes to aver that if the rollerskaters start using the high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment while skating, their chances of incurring injuries will be significantly diminished. This suggestion is based on statistical evidence pertaining to the skaters who are admitted to the emergency rooms of hospitals. However, on a closer scrutiny, this theory seems to be based on several untenable assumptions and scant evidence and hence seems deeply mistaken and unacceptable in its present form.

To begin with, the origins of this survey of skaters with injuries remains obscure in the eyes of a reader. In other words, it is not clear if the survey has been conducted by any independent reasearch firm, or by any group that has been sponsored by a company that is in the field of manufacturing and selling such protective gears and reflective equipment for the skaters. If the latter is the case, the credibility of the survey automatically is dubious, and maye be considered a part of the fervent sales pitch for the company's equipment.

Then again, the nature of evidence or the statistics on basis of which the suggestion has been extended is also open to a lot of questions. For example, certain necessary details that would help in analysing this assertion from the cross-section of the injured skaters as proficiency level, age-wise division etc. are not mentioned at all. In real-life scenario, it is not difficult to conlcude that people with less skills and too-young or too-old people are much more prone to injury than the people who have much more practice in skating and who are relatively agile. For all we know, it is entirely possible that the injured skaters comrpise entirely of children or older people, while at the same time, even without using any gear, the physically fit people never really sustained any serious injury, at least not to the extent that it would have been necessary for them to be admitted into the emergency room.

Furthermore, as far as the accidents and the subsequent injuries incurred by the skaters is concerned, it is mentioned that the skaters ventured into places as streets and car-parks, which are not meant for such activities in the first place. The rate of occurrence of untoward mishaps is always high as compared to the relatively safe places as skating rink, or a park.

On a similar note, product details and design as to how exactly those will protect against injury is also not clearly outlined. It is is not very evident from the assertion the nature of injuries owing to which those skaters were admitted to the hospital, and how exactly the equipment vouched for will be effective for preventing those, e.g., the skaters might have gotten injured severly by colliding against fast moving vehicles on street, or they might have sustained severe injuries to those parts of their body which cannot be protected by the gear, whereby the efficacy of the same is obviously doubtful. It could be the case that many of the remaning twenty five percent of the people admitted to emergency room were wearing the suggested protective gear and the reflective equipment.

To buttress the argument, it will be worthwhile mentioning the details of the agency that had conducted this research, so that the neutrality and the motive of the information provider is never moot. Also, the age-wise break up and the skill levels in skating of the injured skaters is required for deeper analysis, whereby the same can be further used to deduce if lack of agility or training is a significantly contributing factor to the occurence of such untoward incidents.

In summary, the paucity of many of the required details make the suggestion far from acceptable, and call into question the logic and the evidence cited for supporting the conclusion. Unless further evidence is provided regrding the provenance of survey, nature of injury of skaters, age-groups of the injured skaters and theirexpertise level etc., it is difficult to jibe in with the speaker and share his optimism regarding the efficacy of the protective clothing or any light–reflecting material in preventing fatal injuries to the skaters.