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 arguement is well presented and supported, but not completely well reasoned.  It is clear and concisely written.  The content is logically and smoothly presented.  Statistics cited are used to develop support for the recommendation, that roller skaters who invest in protective gear and reflective equipment can reduce their risk of severe, accidental injuries.  Examples of the types of protective equipment are described for the reader.  Unfortunately, the author of the argement fails to note that merely by purchasing gear and reflective equipment that the skater will be protected.  This is, of course, falacious if the skater fails to use the equipment, or uses it incorrectly or inappropriately.  It is also an unnecessary assumption that a skater need purchase high-quality gear for the same degree of  effectiveness to be achieved.  The argument could be improved by taking these issues into consideration, and making recommendations for education and safety awareness to skaters.  

　　Commentary  

　　The first half of this generally well-written but limited response merely describes the argument.  The second half of the paper identifies two assumptions of the argument:  

　　-- that people who purchase protective gear will use the gear -- that high-quality gear is more effective than other gear  

　　These points are sufficient to constitute some analysis and thus warrant a score of 3.  However, neither of these analytic points is developed sufficiently to merit a score of 4.