The author recommends that Stanley Park should change its open space into bench areas since the Stanley Park has become less popular due to lack of socializing places. However, it might not necessarily true since it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that lesser people visit Stanley park based on the reduction of the cars in its parking lot. However, the author should check if the reduction in its popularity is true in the first place. It is likely that the subway or bus stop has newly built near the park that people began to use them instead of driving their own cars. If so, the number of people visiting Stanley Park might not have decreased as the arguer asserts. Therefore, the author should substantiate his/her argument by considering alternative transportations to the park.
Second, the author presumes that the reason for the popularity of Carlton Park is its ample sittings. However, it is an unwarranted assumption. There might be other reasons for many people to visit the park. For instance, the Carlton Park is located in the hub of the business district, so that there are many workers coming to the area. Seeing the statistics of 150 people were conducted during the weekday, it is more likely that most of the people using the park are employees of the companies. If so, the conversion of open spaces into benches would not bring an increase in the popularity of Stanley Park. Therefore, the author should provide information related to the population using Carlton Park during the weekend as well to corroborate his/her argument.
Lastly, the author supposes that converting the unused open area into socializing area would make the Stanley Park recover its popularity. However, even if the number of benches was the reason for its popularity in Carlton Park, it is uncertain whether it applies the same to the Stanley Park. It is possible that there is no demand for more benches in the Stanley Park. Most of the people using the Stanley Park might prefer to do exercises such as badminton or skating instead of socializing. If so, the conversion of open space into benches might reduce its popularity more. Thus, the author should conduct research on the most popular activities in the Stanley Park to bring the expected result.
To sum up, the argument is based on several assumptions that the author needs to provide alternative transportation means to the Stanley Park, the number of people using Carlton Park during the weekend, and the preference among the visitors to Stanley Park.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK, but more: it is for 'last month' only, maybe other months are different.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2078 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.833 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.544 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.423 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, second, so, therefore, thus, well, for instance, such as, to sum up, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2129.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97429906542 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60398532719 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.420560747664 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9691192397 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.380952381 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.380952381 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47619047619 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.357633896691 0.218282227539 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141748365756 0.0743258471296 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.083810355074 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.255717303288 0.128457276422 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446751063067 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.