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 concludes that if Stanley Park wants to increase its customers, it should provide a greater number of benches for seating. To prove his point the author has given an example of the Carlton Park, even though it is not so big in size compare to Stanley Park, but a greater number of people are visiting it as it has ample of seating. The argument lies on series of assumptions that are unpersuasive and illogical. This would be proved in the following essay:
Firstly, the author mentions that the popularity of Stanley Park has fallen and to support his claim he says that the number of cars in the parking lot only shows 50 per day. It could happen that more people, might be visiting the park and they might be using a public transport or taxis instead of a private vehicle. It could also happen that the many people are following car-pooling as a result a greater number of people are coming in one car. So, just by seeing decrement in the number of cars in the parking lot we cannot conclude that popularity of the park has decrease. The author could count the number of tickets being issued in one day at Stanley Park to count the number of people attending it.
Secondly, the author mentions the location of the Carlton Park which is in the heart of a business district. Whereas, there is no mention of the location of Stanley Park. It could happen that only the cooperate people visit the Carlton Park as it is in the business district and no family would be visiting it. It could also happen that cooperate people come to take break in this park for just five to ten minutes so the number has increase more than 150 during weekdays. Also, there is no mention of number of people visiting the park on weekend, so we cannot conclude that Carlton Park has gain more popularity than Stanley Park.
Thirdly, the author believes that as Carlton Park has a greater number of seatings compare to Stanley Park, so more people visit that park. It could happen that the Carlton Park besides having ample of seating, it is more appealing and calming compare to Stanley Park. It might also happen that it has water fountains, statues, playing area of children, and much more. This would lead people towards Carlton Park than Stanley Park. Unless, all these factors are cleared it would not be right to suggest that only due to ample of seating Carlton Park is more popular.
In conclusion, the author should check all these facts before coming to a final judgement of increasing the seating area in Stanley Park. Increasing the seating area would also increase the cost, so a proper cost analysis should be done. The author should conduct a survey in which it should ask questions like 'is there any need to increase seating in Stanley Park?’, ‘will people visit more to Stanley Park if seating is increase?' and if the majority is in the favor then only the necessary steps should be taken.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 517 350
No. of Characters: 2328 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.768 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.503 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.221 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 52 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.614 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 232, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: big
... Carlton Park, even though it is not so big in size compare to Stanley Park, but a greater ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 110, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whereas” 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.
...is in the heart of a business district. Whereas, there is no mention of the location of...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...Stanley Park. It could happen that only the cooperate people visit the Carlton Park as it is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 432, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Unless” 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.
...towards Carlton Park than Stanley Park. Unless, all these factors are cleared it would...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 433, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...to Stanley Park if seating is increase? and if the majority is in the favor then on...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, whereas, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2388.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 517.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.61895551257 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.29207697768 2.78398813304 82% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.382978723404 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 723.6 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3142562392 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.545454545 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.40909090909 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.347486148949 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.151842063098 0.0743258471296 204% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10788003322 0.0701772020484 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239127137226 0.128457276422 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0713566562608 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 48.3550499002 135% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.5979740519 78% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.19 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.