Argument to be analyzed...

[Guest1692]

Statement: Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment. Within that group of people, 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had  not been wearing any protective clothing (helmets, knee pads, etc.) or any light-reflecting material (clip-on lights, glow-in-the-dark wrist pads, etc.). Clearly, the 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. 

Argument: While it may be true that numerous accidents are a result of carelessness of roller-skaters, but this author's argument does not make any cogent case for the reduction in accidents. It may be true to reduce the number of accidents by investing in protective equipments, but there is a rife with holes and assumptions which, alone, do not substantiate the argument. Thus, without proper pros and cons of avoiding accidents, this argument is not valid ostensibly.
While citing the hospital statics, the author considers only the emergency room for the record of accidents relating to roller-skating. The other wards or the hospital, like OPD, orthopedics ward, Neuro ward or any other ward are not taken into account. For example, there are numerous cases of accidents in which people got their bones fractured, or their brains damaged. So such patients are neglected in this report.
Additionally, the author describes that 75 percent of the accidents reported in emergency were of streets and parking lot accidents. Streets and parking lot accidents are not directly referred to as the roller-skating accidents. They can come under the segment where other accidents can occur. For example, two cars could get hit, car could hit a pedestrian while walking on the foot path etc. Violation of traffic rules also results in big accidents. Therefore, street and parking lot accidents are not the "Roller-Skating accidents".
In spite of wearing protective equipments like helmets, knee pads or any light reflecting material, accidents can happen. These accidents may happen nevertheless. For example, a person is walking on the foot path walking along a construction site, any mishap or mischievous thing may happen to him. Hence, such accident is also out of the PEPs relating accident.
As the author implies that by investing money in high-quality protective gear and reflective equipment, the life of roller skaters can be saved. This can be considered as true if the statistics come from all the hospitals or at least a proper number of hospitals taken as a sample. It could be possible that the hospital under surveyance, only deal with patients suffering from streets or parking lot accidents, or in other words, minor accidents cases.
Consequently, this argument is not likely significantly persuade or convince the solution of investing more money in buying protective equipments. With some proper assumptions, reasons and full survey, this argument would have been more thorough and convincing.