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 in the given argument concludes that the Stanley park needs to increase the seating benches in its open spaces in order to increase socializing space and eventually turn it as popular as Carlton Park. While the conclusion made by the author might be true, as it stands now, the conclusion is based on three heavily unwarrented assumptions, and can not hold water unless justified further.
First of all, the author claims that the comparatively low number of car parks per day in Stanley Park compared to Carlton park, has a direct impact to the number of people visiting the park. Normally, in the park, people show up for exercise, jogging, strolling, or walk their pets. It seems like a very far fetched assumption that the lower number of cars parked in the parking space indicates low occupancy. Maybe, in Stanley park, majority of the people come by foot because it is within the town and within walking distance of most of the residents. In this case, the conclusion made by the author is seriously weakened and the extra sitting space arrangement could be just a waste of money and time.
Moreover, the comparison with the Carlton Park in term of occupancy or arrival of people could be an unfair one. The argument states that the Carlton Park is in the heart of the business district which indicates a highly populated area. In contrast, the Stanley Park could be in comparatively less dense area and can not attract the same flow of the people despite the increased sitting arrangement as recommended by the author. Thus, in this case too, the conclusion made my the author can not hold water.
Finally, the author bases the conclusion on the assumption that the people come to park for sitting and socializing. On contrary, in most of the parks, people just wander around and like to stay mobile. Maybe, in case of Stanley Park as well, people would not be too keen to sit and talk with people which would make the added sitting arrangements redundant. Thus, this assumption seems bleak and do not support the conclusion made by the author unless supported via some more pieces of evidence.
To conclude, the conclusion drawn by the author in the given argument seems weak and unpersuasive due to three unwarrented underlying assumptions. As it stand, the conclusion can not be supported unless those unwarrented assuptions are reinforced with further evidence.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 1932 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.759 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.567 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.882 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.543 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author in the given argument conclud...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... hold water unless justified further. First of all, the author claims that the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld be just a waste of money and time. Moreover, the comparison with the Carlto...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ade my the author can not hold water. Finally, the author bases the conclusion...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ted via some more pieces of evidence. To conclude, the conclusion drawn by the...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, may, moreover, so, thus, well, while, in contrast, first of all
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: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1982.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.88177339901 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63748829151 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467980295567 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => 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: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8681924575 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.588235294 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8823529412 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.88235294118 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.270781195839 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100078602277 0.0743258471296 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0959597048705 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156015044225 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108927544832 0.0628817314937 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.32 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.