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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
………………………………………………..
The author asserts that Stanley park needs to provide more seating areas for the people by converting open areas to the seating places for more people to seat on. Although this argument may sound convincing at first, the unsubstantiated assumptions (ungrounded assumption, unwarranted assumption) lead me to conclude that the argument is flawed.
First, the author needs to answer the question whether the survey is sound enough to prove that less people visit the Stanley park than Carlton park when comparing the number of cars parked at Stanley park and that of the visiting people at Carlton park. The comparison of the two numbers of 50 cars and 150 people might look persuasive, however, the number of people in 50 cars parked might outnumber the figure of the 150 visitors at Carlton park. Also, the number of a ‘typical’ weekday’s visitors at Carlton park cannot assume that the average visitors here override that of Stanley park. The regional characteristic of Carlton park which is located at the center of the city should be taken into consideration. There might be held a special event like free concert or a sports game on this special day that Carlton park had 150 visitors. This might have boosted the number of day’s visitors on that special day. Also, the Carlton park might be better place for a short visit for working people at the city during the lunch break whereas the Stanley is more suitable for family outgoing for the whole day during the weekend. Therefore, the downright juxtaposition of numbers between the visitors to the two parks on a special day cannot hold water enough to support the author’s argument.
Next, the author needs supplement the argument with more concrete causal relationship between the number of video cameras in the Stanley park’s parking lot with the decrease in the number of visitors. First, whether to install more surveillance cameras normally is linked to the danger of interfering privacy not to the publicity. This is because more surveillance cameras ensure the safety of the people in the public areas while the areas avoiding the public eyes are normally the places for private activities. Parks are the places for public activities. For this reason, furnishing the public areas such the parking lot in the summit of the park with surveillance cameras as in the case of Stanley park doesn’t hamper the public activities; on the contrary, it helps improve the safety of the people at the region. Moreover, parking areas are not the place for public activities or even for resting: it is for keeping expensive private possessions, that is cars, for a while. More users of the parks might welcome its decision to install more video cameras.
Lastly, the author needs to strengthen his logic in his implication that Stanley park ought to turn the open area to the seating place with more benches for more visitors to seat on. In this way, the author argues that the park offers more socializing opportunity for its users. However, it must be noted that historically plazas refer to just the large open area for people to gather in one place in a time without any interference of artificial structures except some decorating statues. The reason of this is that the place is not giving any limitation on the people’s activities. The place is for people to freely stand, seat or walk together. Any artificial facilities like benches might limit the milieu of action of people, so the place should keep the balance between the two areas of open areas for free activity and seating areas for resting. In all likelihood, Stanley park’s more open areas might be better for family picnic or group activities, so it is more suitable for socialization. Carson park, on the other hand, is probably the place for workers at the city center to stroll and take a break alone for a short break.
In brief, the author’s argument is unconvincing on many grounds. To bolster the argument, the author needs to strengthen the implications further on the detailing conditions of the two parks.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-14 | Kiho Park | 59 | view |
| 2019-10-25 | Sunyoung Cheon | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-04 | smartchin77 | 59 | view |
| 2019-08-30 | Dona Shin | 72 | view |
| 2019-07-23 | Ghader | 42 | view |
- 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: 66
- 168The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette , a local newspaper. "The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budg 47
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain you 58
Comments
I actually got a comment from
I actually got a comment from a instructor, but the score was too low, so I tried scoring on the site again.
Please give me comments on this, especially about the contents.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 19, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
……………………………………………….. The author asserts that Stanley park ...
^^
Line 5, column 36, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
.... First, the author needs to answer the question whether the survey is sound enough to prove tha...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 98, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...he survey is sound enough to prove that less people visit the Stanley park than Carl...
^^^^
Line 5, column 472, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...rs at Carlton park. Also, the number of a 'typical' weekday's visi...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, so, then, therefore, whereas, while, as for, as to, in brief, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 95.0 55.5748502994 171% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3474.0 2260.96107784 154% => OK
No of words: 683.0 441.139720559 155% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08638360176 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.11216868763 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35786387329 2.78398813304 121% => OK
Unique words: 271.0 204.123752495 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.396778916545 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1048.5 705.55239521 149% => 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: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6441010504 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.666666667 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2962962963 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.59259259259 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0891367662161 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0347384673862 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0275099619648 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0445708552787 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0335413543841 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 98.500998004 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.