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

The author assumes that the lack of ample seating is the only reason of the declining popularity of the Stanley Park and recommends that that the city should provide abundant benches in order to reverse the popularity of Stanley Park. At the first sight, the argument seems plausible; however on closer inspection, it is found to be rife with flaws and several unwarranted assumptions and several alternative explanations could be made which can seriously undermine the argument. The author should provide additional significant evidences in order to provide sufficient ground for the argument to stand.

First of all, the author naively assumes that video recording of the cars parked in the parking lot reflects the actual picture of the visitors visiting Stanley Park. However, this assumption falls short given the lack of evidences. It is possible that greater numbers of visitors visit to Stanley Park without cars; probably during morning and evening time for physical exercise and refreshment. It is also possible that high numbers of visitors come to visit the park for short time during their lunch period for which coming through their cars and parking them in the parking lots is time consuming. It is therefore the naivety of the author to assume that the number of cars visiting the Park is commensurate to the numbers of people visiting the park. The author should provide convincing data information about the actual numbers of people that visits to Stanley Park in order to support the argument.

Secondly, let the popularity of Stanley Park is declining and less people visit there for granted. However, it is still the presumptuous of the author to assume that this waning popularity of Stanley Park is due to the lack of sufficient seating. There could be some other reasons for this declining popularity: one possible reason could be its remoteness from the town and city areas as it could takes more than an hour through cars to visit, which is almost impossible for the general people, and another possible reason could be the sense of insecurity the visitors feel due to its remoteness. It is imperative for the author to rule out these possibilities before coming to the conclusion.

Thirdly, the author prematurely assumes that providing ample seating benches for the visitors would help rejuvenate the popularity of Stanley Park. However, it might not be true. It is possible that the popularity of the Clinton Park could have other several reasons besides ample seating—perhaps, Clinton Park could be neat and clean all the times, it could have provided guards for social security, it may have provided clean and odorless restrooms, hygienic foods and water for the visitors at cheap prices and the like so. It is possible that Stanley Park could fail to provide all these facilities to the visitors which could be a probable reason for its dropping popularity.

In sum, the argument as it stands is completely flawed due to its reliance upon several baseless assumptions. The author should provide persuasive evidences in order to support the argument. In the absence of such convincing evidences, the argument remains highly dubious and cannot be reasonably established.