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.  

　　The notion that protective gear reduces the injuries suffered in accidents seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion.  After all, it is the intent of these products to either provent accidents from occuring  in the first place or to reduce the injuries suffered by the wearer should an accident occur.  However, the conclusion that investing in high quality protective gear greatly reduces the risk of being severely injured in an accident may mask other (and potentially more significant) causes of injuries and may inspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear.  

　　First of all, 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 is intended to warn others, presumably for the most part 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 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 repsonsibility 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 goes 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.  

　　Commentary  

　　This outstanding response demonstrates the writer's insightful analytical skills.  The introduction, which notes that adopting the topic's fallacious reasoning could ".??爄nspire people to over invest financially and psychologically in protective gear," is followed by a comprehensive examination of each of the argument's root flaws.  Specifically, the writer exposes several points that undermine the argument:  

　　-- that preventive and protective gear are not the same 

　　-- that skaters who wear gear may be less prone to accidents because    they are, by nature, more responsible and cautious 

　　-- that the statistics do not differentiate by the severity of the    injuries 

　　-- that gear may not need to be high-quality to be beneficial  

　　The discussion is smoothly and logically organized, and each point is thoroughly and cogently developed.  In addition, the writing is succinct, economical, and generally error-free.  Sentences are varied and complex, and diction is expressive and precise.   

　　In sum, this response exemplifies the very top of the 6 range described in the scoring guide.  If the writer had been less eloquent or provided fewer reasons to refute the argument, the paper could still have received a 6.