When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used public park in town. It is still the largest park, but it is no longer heavily used. Video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots last month revealed the park's drop in popularity: the recordings showed an average of only 50 cars per day. In contrast, tiny Carlton Park in the heart of the business district is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday. An obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides ample seating. Thus, if Stanley Park is ever to be as popular with our citizens as Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide more benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing.
The author of this argument claims that unused open areas in Stanley Park must be allocated for socializing. To justify the recommendation, the author cites the following facts. Video camera recordings indicate that average 50 cars per day are parked in Stanley Park’s parking. Moreover, in creasing Stanley Park’s popularly lead to they need more benches. Scrutiny each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible supports to the recommendation.
First, the author relies on the assumption that the few cars in parking indicate Stanley Park’s popularly is decreased. It is entirely possible that people like to use of the bicycle for going to the park. In addition, the parking may have not enough capacity for more that 50 cars and people have to park sides of streets. Moreover, the author assumes that one person in each car, while four people can use a car. Without considering these possible scenario, the author can not justifiable conclude that the few people go to Stanley Park.
Second, a serious of problems with the argument arises from the scant information on which it stands. In comparing the number of ample benches, the author fails to consider the lack of bench in Carlton Park might reveals that many people go to there, because the author must provide information about the total number of bench each of two parks. In short, since the argument relies on the limited statistical information, I can not take the author’s conclusion seriously.
In the third place, the author concludes that we should use unused open areas in socializing for socializing. However, there is no evidence that people, who come to the park, do not use this area. Indeed, juveniles may come this park for do some sports activates, which needs open space, such as riding bicycle, skateboarding, or even walking. In this way, author’s suggestion can increase people’s disagreements. Since, the author provide no warrant that’s his suggestion is beneficial for most people, I cannot convince the author’s conclusion.
To sum up, the argument is logically flowed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more statistical information about the number of benches. To evaluate the argument, it would be better to consider the all possible scenario that how people go to the park. Moreover, we must know why people go to the park.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... author's conclusion seriously. In the third place, the author concludes t...
^^
Line 9, column 196, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...nformation about the number of benches. To evaluate the argument, it would be bett...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'while', 'in addition', 'in short', 'such as', 'to sum up', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.246346555324 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.13987473904 0.15541462614 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0751565762004 0.0836205057962 90% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0396659707724 0.0520304965353 76% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0229645093946 0.0272364105082 84% => OK
Prepositions: 0.118997912317 0.125424944231 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0313152400835 0.0416121511921 75% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87688424061 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0334029227557 0.026700313972 125% => OK
Particles: 0.00208768267223 0.001811407834 115% => OK
Determiners: 0.110647181628 0.113004496875 98% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0292275574113 0.0255425247493 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0104384133612 0.0127820249294 82% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2450.0 2731.13054187 90% => OK
No of words: 394.0 446.07635468 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.21827411168 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.39847715736 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.284263959391 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.213197969543 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.129441624365 0.135150697306 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87688424061 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 207.018472906 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.497461928934 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 54.0860001288 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 17.9090909091 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3821827704 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.363636364 141.986410481 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9090909091 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.727272727273 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 46.3354868482 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.9587628866 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390839198753 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.117971721635 0.135418324435 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.074793253752 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.562909963612 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117257870448 0.147661913831 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173994099533 0.193483328276 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0668300183303 0.0970749176394 69% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.405083136081 0.42659136922 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.105620576819 0.0774707102158 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.290350878265 0.312017818177 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314414602345 0.0698173142475 45% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.