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 of the argument claims that the town needs to provide more benches in Stanley Park to be as popular as Carlton Park. The argument is based on few assumptions and there is lack of evidence. If the assumptions are invalid, then the argument falls apart.
Firstly, the author assumes that Stanley park is not heavily used because the recording of Video cameras showed an average of only 50 cars last month. The author does not tell if the video cameras mounted in the park's parking lots are placed at regular intervals covering the entire parking lot. If all the video cameras are placed at mounted at a small place of the parking lot which does not capture most area of the parking lot, then they would be making wrong decision increasing more benches. The video camera recording cannot give proper estimate of number of people who visit the park. Maybe most of the people who visit the park stay in the same area and don't need any vehicle to visit the park. If this is the case, their assumption is not valid and they end up making wrong decision.
The author states that Carlton park is visited by more than 150 people on a typical weekday and concludes that Carlton park provides ample seating compared to Stanley park. Secondly, the author assumes that ample seating is proportional to number of visitors to parks. This assumption is invalid because there is no evidence that most visitors to the park prefer ample seating. For instance, most of the people may visit parks to perform their physical activities like jogging, walking, yoga.
Thirdly, the author assumes that ample seating in Stanley park will increase the popularity of the Stanley park. The author does not take other factors into consideration. For instance, Stanley park may not be as neat or may not have facilities as Carlton park. Stanley park might not be preferred area for performing regular activities like yoga, walking, jogging because of traffic outside the park. If most of the people who visit Stanley park prefer parks for performing their physical activities in pleasant area, then they may not prefer Stanley Park. If this is the case, then increasing number of benches in Stanley park will be of no use.
The author should take all factors into consideration before concluding that the town should provide more benches in Stanley park to be as popular as Carlton park. The above assumptions need to be evaluated which helps in strengthening or weakening the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2005 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.74 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.348 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 47 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 26 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.614 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 664, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...isit the park stay in the same area and dont need any vehicle to visit the park. If ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, then, third, thirdly, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2055.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86966824645 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38828821999 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.402843601896 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 631.8 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.8660626588 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8571428571 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0952380952 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.66666666667 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.489166995458 0.218282227539 224% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180460991365 0.0743258471296 243% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12649657965 0.0701772020484 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.297955445148 0.128457276422 232% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105257870296 0.0628817314937 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.