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 argues that the declivity in the number of people visiting Stanley Park is due to lack of seating facility unlike which Carlton Park provides leading to its burgeoning business and popularity. The conclusion thus drawn by the author about increasing the benches and using the open areas in Stanley Park is based on many unwarranted assumptions which when substantiated with deliberately convincing proofs; strongly weaken the assertion made by the author. For this the following questions must be answered.
First of all, the author relies on the numbers of cars parked in the parking lot for enumerating the number of people visiting the Stanley Park. The question here do all people come through cars only? There might be a case that people like to travel on foot and come visit the part instead of driving all the way through. Or there might be more bike users than the cars which the author fails to mention in his statement. If any of this comes to be true the number of people visiting the Park is erroneously counted. If such a situation prevails then the claim thus made by the author is seriously weakened.
Secondly, the ample seating in Carlton Park might not be the only reason for peoples’ attraction. There might be other factors as well such as street foods or some fun park arrangement which not only make people to attract but also the children to visit the park more often than the one with nothing as such. Even with limited space, the availability of such arrangement might hold people a lot than the one with bland settings. Children, adult and all groups of people are more attracted towards either food or fun which when provided with balance can be a boon for any business. So, if such a strategy is applied in Carlton Park then the assertion about having more benches than Stanley Park for its attraction is deliberately hampered.
Lastly, the location of Carlton Park might be one of the reasons for peoples’ choice. The Stanley Park might be located at the corner of the city when was not competed was the only choice for the people to have quality time in a park. However, the location of Carlton Park might be amiable for most of the people with abundant facility causing it to be easily accessed and more enjoyable than the Stanley Park. The author fails to mention about the location for both the parks which can be a significant factor in understanding the rate of popularity.
In conclusion, the claim as it stands now lies on many unfolded assumptions which when supported deliberately weaken the claim mad by the author. So, further evidence are needed to accept the claim as it is provided otherwise, it does not hold water.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 465 350
No. of Characters: 2170 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.644 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.667 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.438 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.467 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.342 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 422, 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.
...thor fails to mention in his statement. If any of this comes to be true the number...
^^
Line 2, column 517, 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.
...siting the Park is erroneously counted. If such a situation prevails then the clai...
^^
Line 5, column 207, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... are needed to accept the claim as it is provided otherwise, it does not hold wat...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2219.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.77204301075 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51962444461 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445161290323 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 680.4 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.2789186703 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.95 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.25 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267292942958 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103988033295 0.0743258471296 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103711384663 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164829142608 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0839246088924 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.