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 re

Stanley Park is seemingly visited by the fewer people. To increase the visits, the author of the statement believes that equipping Stanley Park with more benches would be the only solution. This conclusion is based on the premise that such a strategy have worked in Carton Park so it would Work in Stanley Park either. To reach the conclusion, the author made several unsupported assumptions.

First, the author assumes that the average 50 cars per day, shows a drastic decline of Stanley Park visitors. As there is no evidence showing that before last month what number of cars placed in the Park’s parking lot, we cannot be certain that any notable decline happened. It is possible that the cars were 51 cars per day and in last month it is 50. Even if there are significantly fewer cars it might be due to other reasons. Another parking lot might offer space for the cars that people place their cars in there rather than using the Park’s parking. If this is the case, there is no decrease to worry about in the first place.

Secondly, assuming that the decline happened, the author assumes that as more than 150 people visit Carlton Park in the heart of business district per day, it shows the success of the park in attracting the people to come to the park. It is possible that as Carlton Park is located in the center of the business district, people merely use the park as a passage way to go to the other parts of the district. It is also possible that the concentration of the population in that district is far more than the population of the people around the Stanley Park that Carlton Park has more visitors.

Finally, even if the benches were the reason why more people go to the Carlton Park it might not work the allocation of more benches might not be efficient for the Stanley Park, as the author wrongly assumes otherwise. We do not know the numbers of the benches, they might be sufficient and there are other reasons why people do not go the Stanley Park. The water ponds may stick. There may be a shortage of the playground for children. The guards might not be polite with the people and so on. If these are the case, with or without benches visitors decline will continue.

In short, the author made a weak argument since it is replete with ambiguous points. As discussed, the answers to the enumerated questions would illustrate the argument. As long as the questions are left unaddressed, the conclusion which is based on such an unclear argument cannot be tenable.