The author says that by investing in high quality protective gear and reflective

equipment, roller sketers will greatly reduce their risk of severe injury. To prove
argument, author gives some facts. But author's argument is weak.

The author says some statistical information. But source of information - how
reliable it is, is not given. This data may be at a village or certain locality and
thus conclusions from data can not be applied universally. Author does not mention
for how long data was collected. There can be a short term reason for accidents -
may be during rains, ground becomes wet and skaters skid and meet with accidents.
Also, how many hospitals were part of data, was the data collected scientifically,
and what is nature of accidents are not known.

Futher, author says that within that group, 75 percent of people did not wear
protective gears or light reflective equipments. Author does not mention age group
of those 75 percent of people. It may be possible that many young people below age
20 do not wear protective gears or light reflective equipments. And rest of others
wear such gears. Then, recommending only to this perticular age group will benefit.
Possibly, streets and parking lots are not at all safe places for skating. En-route
vehicles might have knocked people off and in spite of wearing gears, skaters may
succumb to severe injury. On the other hand, author should recommend a different
place for skating. Also, he does not mention how usig gears and reflecting
equipments protect in accident. Perhaphs, such measures are not effective.

Futhermore, author draws conclusion that by investing in high quality protective

gears and light-reflective equipment, roller sketers will greatly reduce their risk
of being severely injured. This conclusion is neither properly based on facts nor
on assumptions. Even afer such investments, accidents may persist. There can be a
different cause of accidents such as lack of proper training. But author does not
mention any other possible reason for accident.
In short, author's argument is flawed. In order to strenghen it, he should provide
scientific statistical information, nature of accidents, age group of people, and
possible mistake of using wrong place.