GRE Argument 范文 Topic 142

　　Arg-142

　　Hospitals indicate that roller-skating accidents are high and that there is a clear need for more protective equipment. Within the group of people reported as having been injured in roller-skating accidents, 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.

　　The argument above is well presented and appears to be relatively sound at first glance. Because of the hospital statistics regarding people who arrive after roller-skating accidents, the roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment which will reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident. Upon closer examination, it is easy to identify the unproven assumptions upon which the argument is based.

　　To begin with, as mentioned in the argument, there are two distinct kinds of gear—preventative gear, such as light reflecting material, and protective gear, such as helmets. Preventative gear warns others, presumably motorists, of the presence of the roller skater. It works only if the “other” is a responsible and caring individual who will afford the skater the necessary space and attention. Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether or not it is caused by the skater or by an external force. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident.

　　In addition, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between skaters who wear gear and those who do not. It is at least likely that those who wear gear may be generally more responsible and/or safety conscious individuals. The skaters who wear gear may be less likely to cause accidents through careless or dangerous behavior. It may, in fact, be their natural caution and responsibility that keeps them out of the emergency room rather than the gear itself. Also, the statistic above is based entirely on those who are skating in streets and parking lots—relatively dangerous places to skate. People who are generally more safety conscious may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.

　　Moreover, no evidence is presented to substantiate that safety gear prevents severe injuries. In the likeliest case scenario, if there were a severe accident, safety garments would only reduce the overall severity of the injury sustained. Also, given that skating is a recreational activity that may be primarily engaged in during evenings and weekends when doctors' offices are closed, skater with less severe injuries may be especially likely to come to the emergency room for treatment. So, actually, the number of accidents represented in the emergency room may be misleading.

　　In this argument, I can identify no evidence suggesting that high quality gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may be as easily noticed by as a yellow protective shirt. Before skaters are encouraged to invest heavily in gear, a more complete understanding of the benefit provided by individual pieces of gear would be helpful.

　　Overall, the argument is too weak to be the basis upon which one should form a conclusion—that roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment in order to reduce their risk or severe injury. Before any final decisions are made about whether the roller skaters should invest in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, the argument needs to be entirely reworked.