LearnHub

This section tests your logical reasoning and writing skills. It requires you to evaluate the logical soundness of the argument stated and write a critique of it. The essay is scored on a scale of 0-6. You will be allotted 30 minutes to complete this section. Only one topic will be presented.

Before knowing what this task requires, you should be well familiar with what you are not required to do :

Don't s

1. You are not asked to present your opinion.
2. Do not assess whether the statements in the argument are correct but whether the conclusions are correctly drawn from the statement.
3. You are not asked to agree or disagree with the argument.
   

This section requires you to:

1. Identify the underlying assumptions, evidences and the conclusion stated in the argument. Find out how well the evidence supports the conclusion.
2. Figure out flaws in the logic on which the argument is based and argue it with strong reasoning and examples. Cite evidences that might strengthen or weaken the claims made in the argument.
3. What additional evidences would make the argument stronger?
   

Writing an Argument Task......

Step 1 Read the argument carefully: and identify the assumptions and the evidences presented to figure out the logical fallacies in the argument. Fallacies in an argument are the elements of faulty reasoning that make the argument weak or invalid.

Step II Plan for the response: Think of the alternative explanations that could account for the evidence presented.

Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating 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, roller skaters will greatly
reduce their risk of being severely injured in an accident.

Strategies for this Topic

This argument cites a particular hospital statistic to support the general conclusion that "investing in high quality protective gear and reflective equipment" will reduce the risk of being severely injured in a roller skating accident.

In developing your analysis, you should ask yourself whether the hospital statistic actually supports the conclusion.




You might want to ask yourself such questions as:

• What percentage of all roller skaters goes to the emergency room after roller skating accidents?
• Are the people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents representative of roller skaters in general?
• Are there people who are injured in roller skating accidents who do not go to the emergency room?
• Were the roller skaters who went to the emergency room severely injured?
• Were the 25 percent of roller skaters who were wearing protective gear injured just as severely as the 75 percent who were not wearing the gear?
• Are streets and parking lots inherently more dangerous for roller skating than other places?
• Would mid-quality gear and equipment be just as effective as high-quality gear and equipment in reducing the risk of severe injury while roller skating?
• Are there factors other than gear and equipment-e.g., weather conditions, visibility, skill of the skaters-that might be more closely correlated with the risk of roller skating injuries?

Considering possible answers to questions such as these will help you identify assumptions, alternative explanations, and weaknesses that you can develop in your critique of the argument.

Protective gear is intended to reduce the effect of any accident, whether it is caused by an other, the skater or some force of nature. Protective gear does little, if anything, to prevent accidents but is presumed to reduce the injuries that occur in an accident. The statistics on injuries suffered by skaters would be more interesting if the skaters were grouped into those wearing no gear at all, those wearing protective gear only, those wearing preventative gear only and those wearing both. These statistics could provide skaters with a clearer understanding of which kinds of gear are more beneficial.

The argument above 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. If 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 which are relatively dangerous places to skate in the first place. People who are generally more safety conscious (and therefore more likely to wear gear) may choose to skate in safer areas such as parks or back yards.

The statistic also does not differentiate between severity of injuries. The conclusion that safety gear prevents severe injuries suggests that it is presumed that people come to the emergency room only with severe injuries. This is certainly not the case. 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.

Finally, there is absolutely no evidence provided that high quality (and presumably more expensive) gear is any more beneficial than other kinds of gear. For example, a simple white t-shirt may provide the same preventative benefit as a higher quality, more expensive, shirt designed only for skating. 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.

The argument for safety gear based on emergency room statistics could provide important information and potentially saves lives. Before conclusions about the amount and kinds of investments that should be made in gear are reached, however, a more complete understanding of the benefits are needed. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.

Two experts will rate each essay on a scale of 6. If the scores differ by more than one point, the third reader is called in. Finally the two essay scores are averaged and rounded off to a nearest half point.