In this memo, the author claims that roller skaters have to wear protective clothing or any light-reflecting material in order to reduce their risk of severely injuries in an accident. To support this recommendation, the author cites the hospital statistics among people who visit the emergency room after roller-skating accidents, which indicate those great portion of accident victims (75 percent, in specific) without protective materials. Careful scrutiny reveals that this recommendation relies on several problematic assumptions that render it dubious.
Basically, the author hastily assumes that the usefulness or effectiveness of those protective equipment in reducing severe injuries can be judged by relative percentage from the hospital statistics between the non-wearers and the wearers. However, the visitors of the emergency room may not have a vital role in verifying the usefulness or effectiveness of those protective equipment in accidents. If the author cannot provide more specific information that reveals the impact of wearing the equipment to the skaters skating accident, this recommendation is controversial.
Similarly, this recommendation is still untenable in that it assumes that the visitors of the emergency room had to be injured severely in the accidents. It might be the case, however, there is no evidence to prove the severity of injuries of them. Perhaps most injuries of them might be classified not “severe injuries” but simple causes. Further, they also might visited because of other reasons unrelated to the accidents. If this is true, this recommendation might loses its ground.
Finally, this recommendation also relies on another assumption that the 75 percent in the statistics reveals that skaters should avoid “severe injuries” by simply wearing the protective equipment. However, it is possible that most of skaters in the region usually do not tend to wear the equipment, thus another group of the skaters (25 percent) did not only injured severely without the protective materials. Without ruling out this possibility, we cannot evaluate this recommendation properly.
To sum, this recommendation is poorly substantiated, thus fragile as it stands. To make it tenable, the author should provide more specific information about the effectiveness of the equipment in skating accidents and about what portion of the visitors of the emergency room who injured severely. To eliminate our confusions, we need to know that the trend of the skaters in the region whether they usually wear the protective equipment.
In this memo, the
author
claims that roller skaters
have to
wear
protective
clothing or any light-reflecting material in order to
reduce
their
risk
of
severely
injuries
in an
accident
. To support this
recommendation
, the
author
cites the hospital statistics among
people
who visit the
emergency
room
after roller-skating
accidents
, which indicate those great portion of
accident
victims (75 percent, in specific) without
protective
materials. Careful scrutiny reveals that this
recommendation
relies on several problematic assumptions that render it dubious.
Basically
, the
author
hastily
assumes that the usefulness or effectiveness of those
protective
equipment
in reducing severe
injuries
can
be judged
by relative percentage from the hospital statistics between the non-wearers and the wearers.
However
, the visitors of the
emergency
room
may not have a vital role in verifying the usefulness or effectiveness of those
protective
equipment
in
accidents
. If the
author
cannot provide more specific information that reveals the impact of wearing the
equipment
to the skaters skating
accident
, this
recommendation
is controversial.
Similarly
, this
recommendation
is
still
untenable in that it assumes that the visitors of the
emergency
room
had to
be injured
severely
in the
accidents
. It
might
be the case,
however
, there is no evidence to prove the severity of
injuries
of them. Perhaps most
injuries
of them
might
be classified
not “severe
injuries”
but
simple causes.
Further
, they
also
might
visited
because
of other reasons unrelated to the
accidents
. If this is true, this
recommendation
might
loses its ground.
Finally
, this
recommendation
also
relies on another assumption that the 75 percent in the statistics reveals that skaters should avoid “severe
injuries”
by
simply
wearing the
protective
equipment
.
However
, it is possible that
most of skaters
in the region
usually
do not tend to wear the
equipment
,
thus
another group of the skaters (25 percent) did not
only
injured
severely
without the
protective
materials. Without ruling out this possibility, we cannot evaluate this
recommendation
properly
.
To sum, this
recommendation
is
poorly
substantiated,
thus
fragile as it stands. To
make
it tenable, the
author
should provide more specific information about the effectiveness of the
equipment
in skating
accidents
and about what portion of the visitors of the
emergency
room
who injured
severely
.
To
eliminate our confusions, we need to know that the trend of the skaters in the region whether they
usually
wear the
protective
equipment
.