This argument aims to conclude Stanley that the Stanley Park is no longer heavily used and deem that the park need to be more suitable for socializing to regain the popularity. This proposal is fraught with vague, oversimplified and warranted assumption.
Initially, the evidences in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption. For one thing, the average of only 50 cars per day can't indicates it is no longer heavily used. There may be in the weekend, it will have more than two hundred cars and little car in weekdays. For the other, there is a significant differential between the car capacity. A typical bus could take 30 people, and a saloon could take 5 people. So, the actual people would be much more than 50 and that can't show that Stanley Park is no longer heavily used. What's more, the evidence didn't provide information of the time period of the parking lots. If the caculation of the average cars per day only in the winter months, people would prefer to stay at home, so the low average cars per day couldn't indicate the popularity. And the 150 people a day in Carlton Park can't show it popularity.
The arguer commits a fallacy of casual oversimplification. We can't through the difference between seatings to draw a conclusion that Stanley Park need more seats to regain popularity. For one thing there are many factors would affect the popularity. For example, the location of the two parks and the argument didn't offer evidence such as a survey shows that people tend to Carlton Park is more popular because of its ample seatings.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer is supposed to provide sufficient detailed evidence that the year long period of average cars per day and the only different between the two parks is seatings.