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 assumes that because the recording of parking lots indicate a decreasing popularity of the Stanley Park, the Stanley Park have to add a lot of benches like the Carlton Park in order to increase the popularity. However, since the author relies on fallacious assumption, the recommendation is unreasonable.
To begin with, the author relies on the recordings of parking lots to assume that the popularity of Stanley Park is decreasing. However, the recordings does not reveal the number of people in the Stanley Park; people cannot know how many people in the car. Specifically, there are more than three people in one car or people who like walking. Then, the total number of people in the park might exceed the 150. As a result, the 50 cars cannot represent the real number of people who go to park.
Another dubious assumption that the author relied on is that the arguer fails to establish the casual relationship between the benches and popularity of the Carlton Park. It’s highly possible that other factors contributed popularity of the Carlton Park. For instance, the popularity of the Carlton Park might have resulted from the high quality of devices, which makes people wanting to go to Carlton Park. It is also likely that the Carlton Park was in the popular location, and many people going shopping in the near shopping mall will go here to rest. Lacking evidence that links the benches and popularity of the Carlton Park, it is presumptuous to assume that the benches was responsible for the popularity of the Carlton Park.
Even if the benches caused the popularity of the Carlton Park, it is imprudent to presume that the benches will also make the Stanley Park popular. The editor’s recommendation depends on the assumption that no factors other than benches will cause the increasing popularity of the Stanley Park. However, a myriad of other factors, including people’s hobby or other choice, might be the cause of decreasing popularity of the Stanley park. To be specific, the people’s hobby in the region of the Stanley park is so different from in the region of the Carlton Park that adding benches could not have any effect in the Stanley park; Or other choice instead in the park, such as the university opening externally, impedes the popularity of the Stanley park from increasing. Without ruing out these and other possible causes, the editor cannot justifiably conclude that only by adding benches in the Stanley Park can increasing the popularity of the Stanley Park.
To sum up, the author’s recommendation that relies on many fallacious assumption is unwarranted. If author can offer the number of people in the Stanley Park, some possible factors contributed popularity of the Carlton Park, and other, and another possible factors that can preclude the possible causes, the assumption will be more reasonable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-10 | Nowshin Tabassum | 63 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | shubham1102 | 60 | view |
| 2022-06-11 | Evanica | 64 | view |
| 2021-11-21 | ojehparvaz | 65 | view |
| 2021-10-16 | bislam | 83 | view |
- In an attempt to improve highway safety Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways But this effort has failed the number of accidents has not decreased and based on reports by the highway patrol man 58
- People should travel abroad to experience in various countries when they are younger rather than they are older 73
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves 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 developing an 58
- If a goal is worthy then any means taken to attain it are justifiable 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 developing and supporting your 50
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Our current way of life will have a negative impact on future generations 76
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2326 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.907 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.631 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.009 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.456 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.647 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.236 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, for instance, such as, as a result, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2400.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06329113924 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71567422627 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.371308016878 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.5419899557 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.315789474 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9473684211 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94736842105 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.400602647292 0.218282227539 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178651512705 0.0743258471296 240% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110373365994 0.0701772020484 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272156855752 0.128457276422 212% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820887941734 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.