Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after rollerskating 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-refecting material(clip-on light, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, these statistics indicate that by investing in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, rollerskater will greatly reduce their risk of being severrly injured in an accident.

As the argument presents it, the writer’s standpoint is that more protective equipment should be prepared for roller-skater.  He uses a survey to stage a causal relationship between not wearing protective gear or light-reflective material and getting hurt in roller-skating accidents. Whereas, I am describing my own doubtful view of this argument.

First of all, some factors are essential for continued analysis that attempt to acquire detailed information of the survey, such as sample size, selection procedure, which isn’t mentioned by the writer. Sample size is disregarded, which is the foundation and determination of the reliability for the survey. Without it, the proportion of 75% can prove itself as a strong data and has to struggle against suspicion and weakening. What’s more, the selection procedure, which contributes on an equal foot with the sample size, fails to be concerned, too. Let me suggest one weird possibility that some roller-skaters who have been subjected to the accidents refuse the hospital treatment\. In these cases, the probability exists that other causes of roller-skating accidents are excluded, which also reduces the reliability of the survey.

Moreover, the writer draws a conclusion that investing in high-quality protective equipment will greatly reduce the risk of being injured. However, everything can rarely if ever be attributed to a single factor. We should nevertheless intuitively believe that there must be a connection between the ignorance of protective equipment and a roller-skating accident. Nonetheless, the writer doesn’t capture the complexity of the causes of an accident. Firstly, it’s worth noting that, the situation of the road the roller-skater practices on, accurately describes an element of an accident. If someone disobeys the traffic rule and hits a roller-skater well equipped by the protective material, it equally brings about an accident and inevitable injury. Secondly, there is convincing evident that in some cases, equipment fails to provide an overall protection. That is to say, even if you have worn all the gear, you still expose yourself in danger, leave alone reducing the risk of being injured.

Finally, the argument emphasizes the investment of high-quality protective equipment, in the sense that it has a consequence on the promise of safety. But without a correct using method, it will perform like bedeck not protection. For the roller-skaters safety, they must pay attention to the usage of the protective gear and reflective material.

The argument highlights the role of protective material based on the statistics and some assumption. It’s obviously of key importance that we should equip ourselves when roller-skating. Meanwhile, the writer should offer several vital information of the survey. By laying the foundation for that and combining all the factors, the writer is able to draw a new comprehensive conclusion whose points are stronger and more reliable.