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 argument has a few loop holes and assumptions making the entire premise baseless.
For one, the benchmarking on the number of people visiting both the parks are done differently. At Stanley Park, an estimate of number of cars is used to account for the number of people visiting the park. To compare it with Carlton Park fairly, an approximate count of the people must be used. This is because each car can have a capacity of 2-10 people depending on the model and the argument does not consider if the cars that visit the park have multiple or single occupancy.
Secondly, the recordings of the number of cars in Stanley Park shows the average over an entire month where as for Carlton Park the count is considered only on Weekdays. This might be the reason that the statistics is skewed in favour of Carlton Park. Being located in an area with a lot of business’ running, the Carlton Park might be crowded more on weekdays than weekends. It is possible that people visit the park for a short time to take a break from their busy schedule at office and relax. Since offices are shut down on weekends there may be a dearth of people visiting the Carlton Park.
Thirdly, the assumption that people visit the Carlton Park majorly due to the seating facilities available is wrong. Though it is a nice advantage for people visiting the park to sit, relax and socialize, it is not a driving factor for people visiting the park.
Therefore it can be concluded that just by introducing seating arrangements will not augment the number of people visiting the Stanley Park.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 277 350
No. of Characters: 1266 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.08 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.57 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.409 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 90 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 63 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 39 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 18 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.308 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.875 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.385 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.413 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.607 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 103, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
... shows the average over an entire month where as for Carlton Park the count is considere...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 503, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...heir busy schedule at office and relax. Since offices are shut down on weekends there...
^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...g factor for people visiting the park. Therefore it can be concluded that just by introd...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, as for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1307.0 2260.96107784 58% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 277.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.71841155235 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52170651871 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 204.123752495 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501805054152 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 705.55239521 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.0734956221 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 100.538461538 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3076923077 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.92307692308 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.282217238213 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136489939624 0.0743258471296 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0603769568223 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161466616956 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0905625409655 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.1 12.5979740519 80% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 98.500998004 56% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.