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 is making an argument that Stanley Park, while largest in size, is not heavily used compared to older times. It may look at the first glance, the author’s point might seemingly adequate. However, the author is justifying his or her argument based on some unspecified assumptions, and that may make the conclusion of the author invalid.
First, the answer for Carton Park could not be the answer for the Stanley Park. While the author is arguing that by locating more benches, as Carton Park is offering, the Stanley Park will attract more people as Carton Park. The author might, while not stating, assume that the situation of the two park might quite similar so that the same answer could yield the same results. However, as mentioned above, we do not know how situation is different as Carton Park is located in business district while Stanley Park’s location is not mentioned. By only setting more benches alone will not guarantee the popularity of Stanley Park. We need to compare directly and how two parks are different, especially their surrounding areas.
Furthermore, there are other reason, other than not so many benches that led the unpopularity of the Stanley Park. As mentioned in the argument that the park has opened a long time ago and popular but now the situation is quite different. The author is assuming that the attractiveness of Stanley Park is still same as the old days. However, this may not be true if we consider other factors. The facilities of the park may deteriorated due to time lapse. People will not want to go to the park without good facilities. Moreover, the surrounding area of Stanley park may changed so that people do not want to visit there. While the author does not provide any further information, we have no evidence that Stanley park’s neighborhood is good enough for the people to visit. Moreover, there could other alternative park nearby with good facilities and benches. Then, new benches alone will not bring out the result that the author is hoping for. The author misses all these information and simply assuming all the details and jump into the un warranted conclusion.
Last but not least, the author is simply arguing that the Stanley Park is no longer heavily used compared to the times when the park has opened, and now it is not that popular anymore according to the author. The author is only suggesting the video footage, that shows 50 average cars per day, and that is the sign of unpopularity. However, we do not know whether the cars is the only approachable options for the Stanley Park, and people could visit there without cars. In order to find out whether the park is not heavily used as author is arguing, we need more evidence that show that people are less visiting the park then before. The author is arguing based on unwarranted premise.
In conclusion, the author is providing no information about details while assuming unwarranted premises to jump into the conclusion without justifiable supports. Without considering such information, the end result for Stanley Park may not equal to that of Carton Park. We need to seek more information so that the assumptions that the author have made will be true and the result that the author hopes will come to Stanley Park.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-14 | Kiho Park | 59 | view |
| 2019-10-25 | Sunyoung Cheon | 66 | view |
| 2019-09-04 | smartchin77 | 59 | view |
| 2019-08-30 | Dona Shin | 72 | view |
| 2019-07-23 | Ghader | 42 | view |
- Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning f 29
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.Write a response in which you 67
- The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville."Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre product 61
- Claim: When planning courses, educators should take into account the interests and suggestions of their students.Reason: Students are more motivated to learn when they are interested in what they are studying.Write a response in which you discuss the exte 50
- In most professions and academic fields, imagination is more important than knowledge.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developingand supporting your position, be sure to address the most co 62
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not exactly. need to argue:
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.
argument 2 -- not exactly. need to argue:
An obvious difference is that Carlton Park, unlike Stanley Park, provides ample seating.
//we may something like: maybe people visit Carlton Park for other reasons, not seating.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 558 350
No. of Characters: 2640 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.86 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.731 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.431 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.03 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.503 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.18 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 59, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: largest
...ng an argument that Stanley Park, while largest in size, is not heavily used compared to older ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 972, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...or is hoping for. The author misses all these information and simply assuming all the details and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, still, then, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2722.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87813620072 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5698474824 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.408602150538 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 840.6 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0314499043 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.2142857143 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9285714286 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.42857142857 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.399429375218 0.218282227539 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136904376439 0.0743258471296 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.099687886335 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253651100371 0.128457276422 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0742218354246 0.0628817314937 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.