In the above statement, the author asserts that Stanley Park should provide more benches and places for socializing to be as popular with their citizens as Carlton Park. Although the argument seems convincing at first, the unwarranted assumption leads me to question its validity.
To begin with, the author assumes that popularity of Stanley Park is decrease because there were only 50 cars per day in average last month. However, the cameras recordings may indicate the phenomenon is not adverse. It is possible that the trend of last month is an abnormal situation. Most of residents might visit other cities as their summer vacation. Even if it was not the season of vacation, people may come to the Park not via personal cars which are required to use parking lots but by transportaions such as buses and subways, or even by foots. In this case, the assumption which people do not use the Park heavily more is not true.
Moreover, second assumption the author makes is that the total popularity of Carlton Park is higher than of Stanley Park. It is undeniable that more than 150 people on Monday to Friday visit Carlton Park; however, the statistics does not show the number of visitors of Carlton Park on weekend. Because Carlton Park is located in the main of the business places, lots of businessmen can come to the Park after finishing their work during weekdays. However, they might not visit the Park on holidays. It means, Carlton Park may not have more popularities than Stanley Park.
Lastly third assumption he suggests is that Stanley Park should follow as Carlton Park to be more popular than now. He adamantly believes that the main reason of attracting visitors is providing benches. Even though Carlton Park gets benefits from many seats, it would not induce the same effect to Stanley Park too. He should consider innate characteristics between two parks. Additionally, there might exist other factors to capture visitors to come to Carlton Park. If it is true, more benches are useless to increase visitor in Stanley Park.
In conclusion, the author's argument regarding main factors to make Stanley Park be more popular is unconvincing in many aspects. To bolster the argument, he needs to provide more information to predict the effectiveness of changes precisely.
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In 79
- 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 par 72
- 133. In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the posit 50
- The following report appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council."An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study rep 72
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc."A recent study of our customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which e 48
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: 382 350
No. of Characters: 1864 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.88 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.547 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.481 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 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:
In the above statement, the author asser...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n leads me to question its validity. To begin with, the author assumes that p...
^^^^
Line 3, column 292, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'Most of', you should use 'the' ('Most of the residents') or simply say ''Most residents''.
Suggestion: Most of the residents; Most residents
...of last month is an abnormal situation. Most of residents might visit other cities as their summe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the Park heavily more is not true. Moreover, second assumption the author m...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ore popularities than Stanley Park. Lastly third assumption he suggests is t...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o increase visitor in Stanley Park. In conclusion, the authors argument rega...
^^^^
Line 9, column 24, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tanley Park. In conclusion, the authors argument regarding main factors to make...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 247, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the effectiveness of changes precisely.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, third, in conclusion, in fact, such as, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1920.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 382.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02617801047 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61581600131 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505235602094 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 586.8 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.4557072483 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4285714286 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1904761905 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47619047619 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.387632089928 0.218282227539 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135594034194 0.0743258471296 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0908440706157 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.228031136929 0.128457276422 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0889521210736 0.0628817314937 141% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.