When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used the 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 discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that if Stanley Park wants to be well-known and popular like the Carlton Park, it should provide more facilities in the park and build unused areas for socializing. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored questions should be addressed.
The first assumption that lacks some semblance of truth and can be overtly impugned is that cameras in the parking of Stanley Park recorded 50 cars in the lots but more than 150 cars in the Carlton parks in the weekdays. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since a question that might arise is whether the number of cars parked in the parking lots can approve the popularity of the park. One point that should be considered is that the location of the two parks are totally different and Carlton is at the center of the city. So, it is more accessible than Stanley. In fact, maybe Stanley has different facilities but because of the distance, people prefer to use Carlton. It is also important to say that the author does not mention anything about weekends. Perhaps the Stanley is overcrowded during weekends, who knows?
The author also asserts that the Carlton provide many seating in the park than Stanley. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question whether people go to the popular Carlton Park because of ample seating. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that although more benches provide seating for elderly, maybe Stanley park provides different recreational activities and people prefer to enjoy from these activities than seating inactively. Indeed, there is a possibility that Stanley provides a wide variety of activities, which are expensive and not affordable for individuals. Maybe by the reduction of tickets' price more people attract again to the park.
Putting the two previous assumptions aside, there is still room for doubt. As set forth by the author Stanley should provide unused areas for socializing. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if building unused areas can appeal people to the park. One point that should not go unnoticed is that the vast majority of people prefer socializing in different places like a café or restaurants. So, building such a place in the park might not be a wise decision because there is no guarantee people use this place for socializing.
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a number of questions having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 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: 464 350
No. of Characters: 2236 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.641 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.819 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.511 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.483 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, well, while, as for, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2294.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 464.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94396551724 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59551485915 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450431034483 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 706.5 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7308399625 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.238095238 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0952380952 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2380952381 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.270116105731 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0877496080307 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0970883800925 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155760423007 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101778792322 0.0628817314937 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.