The proposition concludes that to increase the popularity of Stanley Park, the park needs to provide some extra salient features in the form of seating. This conclusion is arrived on the basis on comparison with another park called Carlton Park and the ample seating provided by them. However, while to conclusion drawn by the author might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following three unstated assumptions need to be examined.
First of all, the assumption that Stanley Park and Carlton Park analogous. The author assumes that circumstances from one park can be used to make generalizations and predictions about the other. It is possible that Stanley Park and Carlton Park are not similar at all – perhaps the decrease in popularity of Stanley Park is because Carlton Park is near residential neighborhoods, whereas the former one is located in rural areas which is harder to reach. Further, there is a possibility the features of Carlton Park are more than that of Stanley Park: free Wi-Fi, better running tracks, etc. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the assumption that the number of cars determines the popularity of Stanley Park. Maybe, because of the high popularity with families, several families decide to go together and hence rent a bus (no parking for buses in parking lots) instead of car which can provide them with cheaper transport. Moreover, the park may be providing incentives for bigger groups and hence enticing the use of buses. It is also possible that the parking lots are very expensive and this makes the visitors park their vehicles in a different yet cheaper parking lot. If any of the cases above are true means the author is grossly misjudging the popularity of the park based on number of cars in the parking lot.
Finally, the assumption that adequate seating is going to increase the popularity of the park. It is possible that, the facilities in the park have become old – the swings the children used to enjoy are broken or the running track is rampant with overgrown shrubbery. It is possible that, most of the seats in Carlton Park remain unoccupied throughout the time the park is open, but there are other reasons which make the park so popular. Hence, the author cannot conclude without evidence that increasing seating will result in more visitors.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is severely flawed due its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide more evidence perhaps in the form of a scientific study that searing correlates to popularity or that the number of cars in a parking lot indicate the number of visitors, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the ways in which Stanley Park can increase the waning demand.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 487 350
No. of Characters: 2394 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.698 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.916 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.797 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 556, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...in a different yet cheaper parking lot. If any of the cases above are true means t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, whereas, while, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2460.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03067484663 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74066474816 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482617586912 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 770.4 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6500419111 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.45 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.95 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.41557279189 0.218282227539 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164124842106 0.0743258471296 221% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112476379016 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26809513719 0.128457276422 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0841518357583 0.0628817314937 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.