Since the Argument task is meant to assess analytical writing and informal reasoning skills that a test taker have developed throughout the education, it has been designed neither to require any specific course of study nor to advantage students with a particular type of training.
Test takers do not need to know special analytical techniques and terminology, one should be familiar with the directions for the Argument task and with certain key concepts, including the following:

• Alternative explanation - a competing version of what might have caused the events in question that undercuts or qualifies the original explanation because it too can account for the observed facts


• Analysis - the process of breaking something (e.g., an argument) down into its component parts in order to understand how they work together to make up the whole


• Argument - a claim or a set of claims with reasons and evidence offered as support; a line of reasoning meant to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of something


• Assumption - a belief, often unstated or unexamined, that someone must hold in order to maintain a particular position; something that is taken for granted but that must be true in order for the conclusion to be true


• Conclusion - the end point reached by a line of reasoning, valid if the reasoning is sound; the resulting assertion


• Counterexample - an example, real or hypothetical, that refutes or disproves a statement in the argument


• Evaluation - an assessment of the quality of evidence and reasons in an argument and of the overall merit of an argument

An excellent way to prepare for the "Analyze an Argument" task is to practice writing on some of the published Argument topics. There is no one way to practice that is best for everyone. Some prefer to start practicing without adhering to the 30-minute time limit. If test takers follow this approach, take all the time need to evaluate the argument. Regardless of the approach one take, consider the following steps:

• Carefully read the argument and the specific instructions – it is better to read them more than once.


• Identify as many of the argument's claims, conclusions and underlying assumptions as possible and evaluate their quality.


• Think of as many alternative explanations and counterexamples as possible.


• Think of what specific additional evidence might weaken or lend support to the claims.


• Think what changes in the argument would make the reasoning more sound.

Write down each of these thoughts after the complete evaluation, look over the notes and put them in a good order for discussion (perhaps by numbering them). Then write an evaluation according to the specific instructions by fully developing each point that is relevant to those instructions. Even if chossing not to write a full essay response, one should find it helpful to practice evaluating a few of the arguments and sketching out the responses.
After practicing some topics, try writing responses to some of them within the 30-minute time limit so that to have a good idea of how to use the time in the actual test.
It would probably be helpful to get some feedback on the response from an instructor who teaches critical thinking or writing or to trade essays on the same topic with other students and discuss one another’s responses in relation to the scoring guide. Comparing one’s own response to the other’s response will help them to see how and where to improve.

Although the GRE Analytical Writing section contains two discrete analytical writing tasks, a single combined score is reported because it is more reliable than a score for either task alone. The reported score ranges from 0 to 6, in half-point increments as described below.
Score 6 and 6.5 -Outstanding
In addressing the specific task directions, a 6 response presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the issue and conveys meaning skillfully.
A typical response in this category:

• articulates a clear and insightful position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task


• develops the position fully with compelling reasons and/or persuasive examples


• sustains a well-focused, well-organized analysis, connecting ideas logically


• conveys ideas fluently and precisely, using effective vocabulary and sentence variety


• demonstrates superior facility with the conventions of standard written English (i.e., grammar, usage and mechanics), but may have minor errors

Score 5 and 4.5 - Strong
In addressing the specific task directions, a 5 response presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the issue and conveys meaning clearly.
A typical response in this category:

• presents a clear and well-considered position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task


• develops the position with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples


• is focused and generally well organized, connecting ideas appropriately


• conveys ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety


• demonstrates facility with the conventions of standard written English, but may have minor errors

Score 4 and 3.5 - Adequate
In addressing the specific task directions, a 4 response presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity.
A typical response in this category:

• presents a clear position on the issue in accordance with the assigned task


• develops the position with relevant reasons and/or examples


• is adequately focused and organized


• demonstrates sufficient control of language to express ideas with acceptable clarity


• generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English, but may have some errors

Score 3 and 2.5 - Limited
A 3 response demonstrates some competence in addressing the specific task directions, in analyzing the issue and in conveying meaning, but is obviously flawed.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:

• is vague or limited in addressing the specific task directions and in presenting or developing a position on the issue or both


• is weak in the use of relevant reasons or examples or relies largely on unsupported claims


• is limited in focus and/or organization


• has problems in language and sentence structure that result in a lack of clarity


• contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that can interfere with meaning

Score 2 and 1.5 - Seriously Flawed
A 2 response largely disregards the specific task directions and/or demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:

• is unclear or seriously limited in addressing the specific task directions and in presenting or developing a position on the issue or both


• provides few, if any, relevant reasons or examples in support of its claims


• is poorly focused and/or poorly organized


• has serious problems in language and sentence structure that frequently interfere with meaning


• contains serious errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that frequently obscure meaning

Score 1 and 0.5 - Fundamentally Deficient
A 1 response demonstrates fundamental deficiencies in analytical writing.
A typical response in this category exhibits ONE OR MORE of the following characteristics:

• provides little or no evidence of understanding the issue


• provides little or no evidence of the ability to develop an organized response (e.g., is disorganized and/or extremely brief)


• has severe problems in language and sentence structure that persistently interfere with meaning


• contains pervasive errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that result in incoherence

Score 0
Off topic (i.e., provides no evidence of an attempt to address the assigned topic), is in a foreign language, merely copies the topic, consists of only keystroke characters or is illegible or nonverbal.
Score NS
The essay response is blank.

The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.
“Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with children living in a group of islands that includes Tertia show that these children spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village. This research of mine proves that Dr. Field’s conclusion about Tertian village culture is invalid and thus that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures is invalid as well. The interview-centered method that my team of graduate students is currently using in Tertia will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
✦ Score 6 Response -
It might seem logical, at first glance, to agree with the argument in Dr. Karp’s article that children in Tertia actually are raised by their biological parents (and perhaps even, by implication, that an observation-centered approach to anthropological study is not as valid as an interview-centered one). However, in order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could end up being much weaker than it seems, or it might actually be quite valid.
In order to make that determination, we need to know more than analyze what we learn. The first piece of evidence that we would need in order to evaluate Dr. Karp’s claims is information about whether or not Tertia and the surrounding island group have changed significantly in the past 20 years. Dr. Field conducted his observational study 20 years ago, and it is possible that Tertia has changed significantly since then. For example, if we had evidence that in the intervening year's Westerners had settled on the island and they introduced a more typical Western-style family structure, it would certainly weaken Dr. Karp’s argument. In that case, the original study could have been accurate, and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct, as well, though his conclusion that Dr. Field’s method is ineffective would be seriously weakened. Another piece of evidence that might help us evaluate this claim involves the exact locations where Dr. Karp’s interviews took place.
According to this article, Dr. Karp and his graduate students conducted interviews of “children living in the group of islands that includes Tertia.” If we were to learn that they never interviewed a single Tertian child, it would significantly weaken the conclusion. It could turn out to be the case, for example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas children on other islands nearby are raised by their biological parents. In order to fully evaluate this article, we would also need to learn more about the interview questions that Dr. Karp’s team used. What exactly did they ask? We don’t know, nor do we know what the children’s responses actually were. What did they say about their biological parents? The mere fact that they speak more frequently about their biological parents than they do about other adults does not mean that they are raised by their biological parents. It would significantly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument if it turned out that the children said things like how much they missed their parents or how their parents had left them in a communal environment. Without knowing WHAT the children said, it is hard to accept Dr. Karp’s conclusion. It is slightly more difficult to discuss the evidence we might need in order to evaluate the more interesting claims in Dr. Karp’s article, namely his extension of the results of his study to the conclusion that interview centered methods are inherently more valid than observational-centered approaches.
In order to fully evaluate this claim, in fact, we would need to look at many more examples of interview-based and observation-based anthropological studies and we would also need to look into different study designs. Perhaps Dr. Field did not conduct an effective observational study, but other observational approaches could be effective. In order to make such grandiose claims, Dr. Karp really needs a lot of additional evidence (ideally a metanalysis of hundreds of anthropological studies). Clearly, then, we need to have additional evidence in order to get a more complete understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Karp’s article. We need to know about Tertia and the surrounding islands, whether or not they have changed over the past 20 years. We also need to know about study design (Dr. Karp’s and Dr. Field’s). And we really need a lot more information if we want to extend the results of a study about one island culture to all anthropological fieldwork.
Reader Commentary -
This outstanding response clearly addresses the specific task directions and presents a cogent, insightful analysis by specifically detailing the impact that different pieces of evidence would have on the argument. The introductory paragraph sets up the organization of the response, and each body paragraph provides the sort of compelling development typical in responses that receive a score of 6. For example, after the writer discusses possible evidence that Tertian child-rearing practices have changed over the past 20 years, he or she clearly explains the impact information about those changes might have on the argument, saying, “In that case, the original study could have been accurate, and Dr. Karp’s study could be correct, as well, though his conclusion that Dr. Field’s method is ineffective would be seriously weakened.” Not only is this argument compelling, but it also demonstrates sophisticated syntax and facility with language. There is more insightful development in the fifth paragraph, in which the writer examines Dr. Karp’s claims about interview-based studies. Although there are a few typos and minor errors here, nothing in the response distracts from the overall fluency of the writing. Sentences like this one demonstrate the fluent and precise diction and varied syntax that are evident throughout the response: “It could turn out to be the case, for example, that children on Tertia are raised communally, whereas children on other islands nearby are raised by their biological parents.” Because of its compelling and insightful development and fluent and precise language, this response fits all of the bullet points for a 6.
✦ Score 5 Response -
There seems to be an abundance of evidence that, if we were to examine it closely, might make us reconsider Dr. Karp’s argument here. If we look first at the evidence that might weaken this argument, we can see a lot of the problems with Dr. Karp’s article. It would certainly weaken the argument if we were to discover that Dr. Karp and his students did not actually conduct any of their interviews on the island of Tertia itself. Looking closely at the article, we see that Dr. Karp claims the interviews were conducted with children from the island group that includes Tertia.
There is no evidence that they interviewed Tertian children. It would definitely weaken the argument if we were to learn that they interviewed children only on islands close to Tertia. Those islands may or may not have similar childrearing traditions, and geographic proximity does not guarantee societal similarity.  Another piece of evidence that would weaken the argument could come from transcripts of the interviews themselves. Dr. Karp’s article makes the claim that the children “spend much more time talking about their biological parents than about other adults,” but he gives no indication of what exactly they say about their biological parents. After all, the children may be talking about how they never see their parents. One more important piece of evidence that might undermine the argument Dr. Karp is making in this article. He admits that twenty years have passed since Dr. Field’s study was conducted, but he does not provide evidence that proves child-rearing techniques have not changed significantly in that time. Any number of factors could have led to a significant shift in how children are raised. Influences from other cultures, significant catastrophic events, or a change in government structures could have led to a change in family dynamics. Any evidence of such changes would clearly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument. If we went looking for evidence that could strengthen the argument, we might also find something interesting. Obviously, some of the evidence above might strengthen the argument if they were NOT as discussed above (e.g., if there were evidence that the Tertian islands have NOT changed since Dr. Field’s study or if there were transcripts that showed the children spoke about how much they loved living with their biological parents). However, if we discovered that there are numerous interview-based studies that confirm Dr. Karp’s findings, it would go a long way toward bolstering his claim about Tertian child-rearing AND his claim about interview-centered studies being more effective. Another piece of evidence that would strengthen Dr. Karp’s argument is undermining Dr. Field’s original study. Maybe Dr. Field was sloppy, for example. Dr. Karp’s article, then, ends up looking like something of an empty shell. Depending on the evidence we find to fill it out, we may discover that it is quite convincing, or we could determine that he is full of hot air.
Reader Commentary -
This strong response presents a generally thoughtful and well-developed analysis of the argument, and it follows the specific task directions quite clearly. This writer approaches the task by first discussing the evidence that might weaken Dr. Karp’s argument and then, in somewhat less depth, considering the evidence that could strengthen it. In both cases, the writer analyzes the ways in which the evidence would bear on the argument.
For example, the writer notes, “Influences from other cultures, significant catastrophic events, or a change in government structures could have led to a change in family dynamics. Any evidence of such changes would clearly undermine Dr. Karp’s argument.” Although the development presented here is strong, the response does not present the compelling development required for a 6. For instance, in the first paragraph, there is some repetition, and in the third paragraph the reader must fill in the implications of potential “changes” in Tertia, which are not fully fleshed out. How could a catastrophic event or a change in governmental structure have led to changes in child-rearing traditions? The development, then, is strong but not outstanding. Also, the response demonstrates some facility with language, though it does not convey meaning skillfully enough to merit a score of 6.
In general, the response demonstrates strong writing skills, in spite of some minor errors like the sentence fragment that begins paragraph three. Sentences like this one demonstrate the quality of the writing seen throughout the response: “Those islands may or may not have similar child-rearing traditions, and geographic proximity does not guarantee societal similarity.” In terms of writing skills and analysis, then, this response earns a score of 5.
✦ Score 4 Response -
Dr. Karp’s arguments that his research proves that observation-centered research is invalid and that his interview-centered method “will establish a much more accurate understanding of child-rearing traditions there and in other island cultures” need more support. While the findings from Dr. Karp’s interviews do challenge Dr. Field’s results, one then cannot make the assumption that Dr. Field’s research is invalid. This essay will attempt to explain three ways in which Dr. Karp can strengthen his argument.
First, Dr. Karp should provide more information about the content of the interviews. Misinterpretation from observation can be as likely as misinterpretation in interviews. It is possible that while children may spend more time talking about their own biological parents, other people from the village are still assisting in most of the rearing of the child. Perhaps asking the children how much time they spend with their parents, who disciplines them, and other specific questions about rearing would provide a more complete answer about who exactly is raising the children.
Second, Dr. Karp could provide some information about societal changes in the past twenty years. If there have been significant changes on the island of Tertia, it is possible that both anthropologists are correct. Twenty years ago, the entire village raised children, and now, biological parents raise their own children. Recent events could explain the change - such as the introduction of Western mass media or changes in government (monarchy to democracy). Perhaps even interviewing adults to get a better understanding on child-rearing. Not to mention, interpreting information from children and using that information to generalize about an entire island is not the most effective means.
Thirdly, Dr. Karp needs more proof that the observation-centered approach to studying cultures in invalid. A potential mistake in one article can hardly invalidate an entire method of research. Other anthropologists who employ the interview-centered method need to dispute the work of anthropologists who use the observation-centered approach. Only when a significant amount of research can be disproved can an entire method of research be invalidated. To conclude, Dr. Karp needs to do more research and provide more evidence before his large claims can be fully supported. In fact, it will take more than Dr. Karp alone to prove the observation-centered method of research is invalid and further, that the interview centered method is better. In terms of his own research, Dr. Karp needs to conduct more interviews on the Tertia islands and scientifically prove Dr. Field’s research wrong.
Reader Commentary -
This adequate response manages to identify some important features of the argument, presenting a competent examination and generally following the task directions. The response does not merit a score of 5 or 6, however, because it does not present compelling or insightful development. The response identifies basic points about the content of the interviews, possible changes in Tertia, and observation-centered studies, but these points are developed only adequately. Development in paragraph four (“Thirdly...”) is generic and thin, and the final paragraph just recapitulates the assertions made earlier.
The response does follow the specific task instructions, but it does not develop its discussion of specific evidence fully. For example, there is a claim that “specific questions about rearing would provide a more complete answer about who exactly is raising the children,” but the response does not explain what sorts of questions would give which answers or how those answers would strengthen or weaken the  argument. Also, language control in this response is merely adequate, not strong. There are some typos and other errors (e.g., a sentence fragment in paragraph 3: “Perhaps even interviewing adults to get a better understanding on child-rearing”), but the response generally demonstrates control of the conventions of standard written English, and main points are made with reasonable clarity. Because of its adequate control of language and competent analysis, this response earns a score of 4.
✦ Score 3 Response -
It will be very inappropriate to condemn Dr. Field’s observations and findings. A critical look and analyses of the argument shows that details of Dr. Field’s work was not given out. In fact, it is sad on the side of the writer to think that Dr.Fields work is invalid. First, the fact that the children of Tertia spend much time talking about their biological parents than about other adults in the village can be interpreted in a different way.
The writer did not give any clue on what exactly the children were saying about their biological parents. It could be that they were talking about their parent’s irresponsibility of rearing them by themselves than leaving them in the hands of the whole community to bring them up. In fact, the argument could have been strengthened if the writer gave what exactly the children were talking about. On the other hand, the writer failed on his or her part as a researcher to look at the time frame from the time Dr. Field did his analyses to the time writer also conducted His or Her research. This would have given him the insight as what new developments has taken place within the twenty years gap that Dr. Field did His analyses.
The writer’s argument would have given a lot of meaning if the writer had research into the cultural developments that has taken place since the time Dr. Fields last visited and did completed His work at Tertia. Also, as a reader, the tone this writing is not very convincing. It almost seems like Dr. Karp is making Dr. Fields look bad, instead of supporting his own research with information. He really only says one sentence about his own research, the rest of it is about how Fields work is not as good and saying things about Fields work. He needs to have more details about his own work to really sell the reader on it. He needs to write more about what the interview-centered method is, since he does not even say what it is. This will be more convincing if it is less of an attack on Dr. Field and more about the researches. On the whole the writer's work is incomplete and His or Her criticisms are unfounded. The writer needs to change the qualitative way of His or Her research into a more quantitative approach. If done in this way the impact of His or Her findings will be very strong and convincing.
Reader Commentary -
Although this response analyzes some important features of the argument, it is limited in development and often lacks acceptable clarity in expressing its ideas. In particular, this response contains occasional major errors and frequent minor errors that can interfere with meaning. Misused words, subject/verb agreement problems, and other lapses occur throughout the response.
In addition to the problems with language control, the response demonstrates limited relevant development. It is true that the response makes an attempt to follow the specific task instructions, identifying the fact that the argument might be strengthened by evidence that the children were talking in a positive manner about their parents. However, the response does not explain exactly how this evidence would strengthen the argument. Similarly, there is discussion of the elapsed time between the two studies, but the response does not clarify how information about the “cultural developments” over the past 20 years would strengthen the argument Dr. Karp is making.
Additionally, some of the points the response is making are not actually relevant to an analysis of the logic of the argument. The discussion of Dr. Karp’s tone in the fourth paragraph, for example, is a rhetorical critique, not a logical one. There is an attempt to talk about evidence (“He needs to have more details…”), but the focus in this paragraph is on “selling” the reader, not creating a persuasive argument. Because of its limited development and language control, this response earns a score of 3.
✦ Score 2 Response -
The argument is on the article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist and his study and the new plan to study the same in the tertian region.Dr.Karp has written an article on Children in Tertia and about the culture. The argument is that they have not mention the type of interview and the type of questions of the interviews. They haven't indicate the education level in the children and the background of the children. What are all the things the team is going to observe and study on the child rearing tradition is not clearly mention.
The team is going to study and correlate the tradition with the other island culture but there is a possibility of different environment of other island or different biological parents. The resource availability on one island is different than the other is also a possibility. In that situation it is not possible to correlate the culture between to Iceland. There is a possibility, Dr. Field’s interview time, lacking of infrastructure in the trait. There was no development of schools and other refreshment activity or the parents may not spent enough time with the children due to various reasons and that effect to the children, so they might have spent more time talking about their biological parent. To support the argument more information about the nature, cultural background and also the type of infrastructure presence in the area is require, the kind of study carrying out in the study area is require. Which would help to give more support the argument.
Reader Commentary - This response demonstrates serious weaknesses in analytical writing. There seem to be some attempts at logical analysis, though none that specifically and clearly examine the evidence that might weaken or strengthen the argument. Additionally, there is little or no relevant or reasonable support for the writer’s points. In large part, the lack of logical development seems to be due to the serious and frequent problems with language control seen throughout the response.
There are basic errors in just about every sentence of the response, and these errors frequently interfere with meaning. This sentence exemplifies the problems seen throughout the response: “There was no development of schools and other refreshment activity or the parents may not spent enough time with the children due to various reasons and that effect to the children , so they might have spent more time talking about their biological parent.” The writer is attempting to discuss some points that are relevant to an analysis of this argument, but meaning is obscured by all of the errors present. However, some meaning can be discerned, and these errors are not severe enough to drop the score to a 1.
✦ Score 1 Response - Twenty years ago Dr. Field an anthropologist found result after research that in small village of tertian children reared by entire village but according to dr karp he talked most of the children that they talk about their biological parents. so it conclude that the research of dr field is unvalued now and what type of methods dr field used may be not cover all aspects of their culture and also other cultures of other islands. Reared the children by entire village is not logical but in some cultures there are some surprising customs.
So may be Dr. Field did not analyzed the culture of that island on various parameters, which we are using now a days. interview with children and observing their behavior is important because some time the person talk one thing and behave in different way look like either he not telling correct or he is showing his altitude in misguiding way. I think the behavior of the children shows proper report of research and you can observe their altitude to the other adult peoples of the village and to their own biological parents. The expert research scholar can easily feel their emotions and behavior during some time stay with their culture. Dr. Field maybe more research time, maybe, for longer.
Reader Commentary – This fundamentally deficient response mainly consists of a summary of the prompt, and although there is some evidence of understanding, the response provides little evidence of the ability to develop and organize an analysis of the argument. Also, severe problems in language persistently interfere with meaning. In fact, the material that does not come directly from the prompt is more or less incomprehensible.
Sample Question 2:
Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller-skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment.
The passage infers that as indicated by statistics from hospitals, individuals who enter the emergency room after roller-skating accidents show the need for proactive protection hardware. Keeping in mind the end goal to help this, the author here has come up with specific pieces of evidence. However, on a more profound investigation, it has been found that none of the evidence loans sound help to the conclusion. Thus, let us examine them further and understand how the author misses to include several critical arguments.
Right off the bat, the creative author discusses that 75 percent of groups of people who had mishaps in boulevards or parking areas were not wearing any proactive dress or any light-reflecting material. However, the author overlooks the way that accident results. For instance, whether it is during the daytime or at night. He also doesn’t mention if lanes and parking areas have traffic or are vacant. The light-reflecting materials are required by the people where drivers are more for the indication of roller skaters. But, for proactive apparatus, the author pointlessly disregards that the reason for the accident is another roller-skater or a driver or a characteristic disaster since it is misty that the accident happens just to the individuals who are not wearing this or both.
Secondly, the author discusses that it is clear by the insights that fantastic proactive gear and proper reflective material roller skaters will extraordinarily decrease their danger of being extremely harmed. However, the author disregards the way that such materials are utilized to demonstrate others about the traffic. For the most part, if the people who are sensible enough do not skate at zones with traffic, such materials are not of much use. The roads and parking places are not the ideal place for skating. Skaters must skate at backyards or parks. Also, the proactive apparatuses are generally utilized by those skaters who skate hazardously or like doing stunts.
Thirdly, the statistics mentioned here don’t accompany the conclusion that such safety gear counteracts some severe injuries or wounds. The conclusion proposes that it is assumed that individuals come in the emergency room just with severe wounds. Additionally, skating is a recreational activity that is generally engaged during the weekends or in late evenings when doctors’ workplaces are shut. Skaters with wounds of lesser intensities come to emergency rooms only for minor treatment.
Last but not least; the author did not cover the fact associated with an outfit of top-notch quality. Here, it has been overlooked that a white shirt at night reflects progressively and effectively. Before skaters are urged to put resources into a good quality of gear, a better comprehension of the advantages given by such gear would be useful. Generally speaking, the argument is far behind from being sufficiently compelling to influence the roller skaters to put resources into proactive gear or equipment so as to decrease their hazard. Much work is left for the author keeping in mind the end goal to settle on a legitimate and apt choice on safety gears used by roller-skaters.