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.
The author in the argument concludes that the availability of seating in the Carlton park is the reason of its popularity in comparison to seating availability in Stanley Park. The author bolsters the conclusion by mentioning the average number of cars parked in the parking lots from the parking lots recording. And finally concludes that if the Stanley park want to attract more people then it should use the open space to create more sitting areas. The argument seems compelling at first look, but reading it again displays many loop holes and gaps between the conclusion and proofs. The argument is very evidently the result of hasty generalization.
Firstly, the author mentions that the Stanley park attracted a lot of people when it was opened and after some time the rush of people decreased. It can be the case that people were attracted to see the largest park and in the beginning it got more attention than any other park. And so after some period the park lost attention of the people. With this as the reason constructing the benches in the open space would be waste of time and money. And also in turn the people who loved the open space environment would also get affected by this.
Secondly, the author here has mentioned about the average number of car of last month in the parking lot. But the author here has not mentioned with what other data/statistics it was compared. It can be the case that the average number of cars last month were not the lowest. The author here needs to mentions the data with which the comparison is done. And continuing with this it can also be like the people coming to Stanley park would prefer to use two wheeler or by walking. So this scenario is not counted anywhere in the passage.
And the author here has compared the Stanley park with Carlton park. But the author has not mentioned the other background information of Carlton Park. It can be the case that Carlton park is famous for its surrounding or it attracts more people because of its location; heart of the business district. The author need to provide the detailed information about the Carlton Park.
The argument is the result of hasty speculation in which the author has assumed considerable amount of data, first about the popularity and second about the average number of cars. Had the author taken the above discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. But whatever is presented fails to provide the holistic picture to the suprefluous claims being made.
- Much archaeological evidence supports the widely held view that the first people to migrate to the American continent entered through a land bridge, which at one time joined Eastern Asia with North America. This land bridge, known as Beringia, was a wide 75
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re 29
- Professors should attain tv shows or not 76
- The northern land bridge 68
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: But whatever is presented fails to provide the holistic picture to the suprefluous claims being made.
Error: suprefluous Suggestion: superfluous
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2041 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.692 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.425 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.136 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.522 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 389, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...tanley park want to attract more people then it should use the open space to create ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 302, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'mention'.
Suggestion: mention
...ot the lowest. The author here needs to mentions the data with which the comparison is d...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 458, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'wheeler' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'wheelers'.
Suggestion: wheelers
...to Stanley park would prefer to use two wheeler or by walking. So this scenario is not ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2091.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 434.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81797235023 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51283206793 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421658986175 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 651.6 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.1282285144 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.9130434783 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8695652174 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.13043478261 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30868716291 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1070089342 0.0743258471296 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10973019305 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185871536466 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10321549049 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.11 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.