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.
Two parks are compared with each other. it is said that Stanley park is not as popular as it was in the past, and Carleton is the park that people are more willing to go. Some reasons have been mentioned for the popularity of the Carlton park and also the writer offers that the Stanley park needs to follow the positive points of the Carlton park to obtain its fame. However, I believe that there many vague points in the argument. Many questions should be answered for the reinforcement of arguments and assumptions.
It is said that “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.” There is one source in the text which is considered for proving this argument. The only source is video cameras installed in the park. According to them, only 50 cars in a day are parked near the park. There are several questions that should be answered. Firstly, whether the number of cars is a good criterion for assessment of the popularity of the park or not. Secondly, do all people visiting the park have car or are all individuals going eligible to have car? So, the number of cars shown in the camera is not a suitable option for this check. The most important question is that from when the park has lost its popularity. Whether the installation of cameras in the park can have any role in this subject, as many people do not like to be watched by cameras and they believe that video surveillance is invasion of privacy. So, it is possible that one of the reasons that people prefer to choose another park is the existence of video cameras. Also, do cameras cover all surrounding areas near the park? It is possible that people find some places which are not watched by cameras. The statistical figure mentioned in text is not valid. We cannot exactly understand whether that Stanley park really has lost its popularity or not.
The Carlton park is in the heart of the business district and it is said that it is visited by more than 150 people in a week. The comparison between the parks is wrong. For the first of the numbers of cars have been considered while for the second one the numbers of people. Also the areas of the parks are not comparable. It is clear that the business district is always busy and more people may go there. Also for the Stanley park, the statistical figure shown is for one day but the second one is for one week. The writer in the text-only wants to show that the popularity of the Carlton park is high. The argument of the writer had been more valid if he/she would have compared two parks according to the same period and the same factors and conditions. Also, the only difference mentioned between the parks is the number of seats. This type of comparison is not fair, the writer has to consider the positive point and negative points of the parks and then decide that which park is better.
Also, how the writer can ensure that the increasing numbers of benches can increase the popularity of the Stanley park. Is this solution really can improve the situation of the Stanley park? About converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing in the Stanley park, there is no financial source mentioned. Park itself is a place for socializing, so it would be better people are asked about the facilities that they want to have in the park.
In conclusion, assumptions and arguments mentioned in the questions are not cogent and for improvement of them, the points and the questions mentioned in the writing should be checked.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 35 15
No. of Words: 644 350
No. of Characters: 2880 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.038 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.472 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.364 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 187 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.947 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.398 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 41, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...Two parks are compared with each other. it is said that Stanley park is not as pop...
^^
Line 5, column 277, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...r the second one the numbers of people. Also the areas of the parks are not comparab...
^^^^
Line 5, column 409, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ways busy and more people may go there. Also for the Stanley park, the statistical f...
^^^^
Line 5, column 664, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had compared'?
Suggestion: had compared
...he writer had been more valid if he/she would have compared two parks according to the same period ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 209, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...n of the Stanley park? About converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, still, then, while, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 51.0 19.6327345309 260% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2959.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 643.0 441.139720559 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.60186625194 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.03561760524 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42490298881 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.368584758942 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 923.4 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.6214854317 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.5428571429 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3714285714 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.28571428571 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.67664670659 299% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.48590080158 0.218282227539 223% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.154446640796 0.0743258471296 208% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127905278818 0.0701772020484 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.278271359137 0.128457276422 217% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.157773492546 0.0628817314937 251% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.4 14.3799401198 65% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 70.13 48.3550499002 145% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.9 12.197005988 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.4 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.06 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.