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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author states that the Carlton Park is visited most compared to Stanley Park. This theory seems to overlook the fact that a park is not just about providing ample seating. The author fails to consider other parameters such as location, surroundings and décor. Even if people prefer Carlton Park maybe it’s because of the facilities that it provides.
Firstly, the author has compared the Stanley park which is situated in a town with Carlton Park situated in a business district. Maybe, this is the reason that people prefer going to Carlton park which is nearby rather than opting for a park situated in a town. To make the issue more convincing, the author says that the recordings from the video camera showed an average of 50 cars per day. This sentence itself has so many flaws in it. Firstly, he has considered only the parking lot video cameras which is not enough to conclude a statement. People mostly prefer to walk to park than to drive. Also, he considered the number of cars and not the number of people. If the author is considering a car, then it’s not necessary that the number of people in a car would be same to that of others. This is a major drawback of the statement. Also, the author has concluded his issue on the basis of taking the average number of cars per day. The author needs to reinforce a statistical data of both the parks considering the number of people visited, not just of a day. Maybe, if he could have provided the data of at least a month or conduct a survey which would have make the argument stronger.
The argument with such obvious loopholes and fallacies does not stand up to a more careful scrutiny. In the absence of conventional data, the argument is unsubstantiated and hence the reader’s stand is vindicated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 314 350
No. of Characters: 1418 1500
No. of Different Words: 150 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.21 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.516 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.439 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 97 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 62 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 42 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 21 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.5 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.319 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, if, look, may, so, then, at least, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1460.0 2260.96107784 65% => OK
No of words: 314.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.64968152866 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52449559622 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477707006369 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.3419600109 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.1111111111 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4444444444 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94444444444 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.15768463074 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.260938350646 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0936728774674 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110870055876 0.0701772020484 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164870836453 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.118990810385 0.0628817314937 189% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.2 14.3799401198 64% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 71.14 48.3550499002 147% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.6 12.197005988 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.39 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.