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.
In the prompt, the author concluded that to attract more people to Stanley Park, the town will need to provide more benches in the park, giving people space to socialize. The author came to this conclusion based on a data on the number of people visiting Stanley park over a month and the number of people visiting Carlton park on a typical weekday. And in reaching to this conclusion, the author made some unwarranted assumptions which can be evaluated through three major questions.
Firstly, is Carlton Park a similar representation of the Stanley Park? Since, the prompt suggests that Carleton park is situated in the heart of a business district, it maybe the case that Stanley park is not in a business district. In such a case, it will be a poor choice to compare the two parks. Perhaps Stanley Park is situated at the outskirts of a business district which is why less people are visiting Stanley park on a typical weekday. It might be the case the road that leads to the Stanly Park is not suitable for driving or maybe it is situated at an area which requires long hours of driving. If any of the assumptions stated above comes true, then comparing Stanley park and Carleton park will be unwarranted thus weakening the author's conclusion.
Secondly, the author assumed that benches are the only factor that is attracting people to Carlton Park. There might be other factors that are more attractive to people leading them to visit again and again. It might be the case that since Carlton Park is situated in the heart of a business district, the employees like to visit the park during their break time. Another factor might be that there are more vendors and food carts situated on the side of the park which makes it more convenient for people to eat after they visit the park. If either of these scenarios hold water, then the original argument of benches attracting more people will be weakened further.
Lastly, The data from Carlton Park from which the comparison was done, was based on a typical weekday. Is comparing the data of a month from Stanley Park with the data of a weekday of Carlton park a good choice? There may be many cases that led to more people visiting Carlton Park on that weekday, maybe there was an event being hosted nearby and people visiting the event also visited Carlton park making the observation more skewed. If these scenario is found true, the conclusion of the author is based on a skewed data thus weakening it.
In conclusion, the conclusion of the author as it is stated is flawed due to its dependency on some unwarranted assumption. If the author to able to provide sufficient evidence against the questions and the scenarios stated above, only then will it possible to evaluate the feasibility of the recommendation made by the author to add more benched in Stanley Park to attract more visitors.
| 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 |
- Some people believe that allowing children to make their own choices on everyday matters such as food clothes and entertainment is likely to result in a society of individuals who only think about their own wishes Other people believe that it is important 73
- Inspite of the advances made in agriculture many people around the world still go hungry Why is this the case What can be done about this problem 61
- In the past people wore their traditional clothes and followed their culture These days most people wear similar clothes and therefore look very similar to one another Do you think this is a positive or a negative development 84
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the pos 66
- The first chart below shows how energy is used in an average Australian household The second chart shows the greenhouse gas emissions which result from this energy use 67
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2312 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.633 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.441 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.133 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.578 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Stanley) must be used with a third-person verb: 'parks'.
Suggestion: parks
...n the number of people visiting Stanley park over a month and the number of people v...
^^^^
Line 1, column 324, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Carlton) must be used with a third-person verb: 'parks'.
Suggestion: parks
...d the number of people visiting Carlton park on a typical weekday. And in reaching t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...rts of a business district which is why less people are visiting Stanley park on a t...
^^^^
Line 3, column 420, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Stanley) must be used with a third-person verb: 'parks'.
Suggestion: parks
...is why less people are visiting Stanley park on a typical weekday. It might be the c...
^^^^
Line 3, column 744, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... will be unwarranted thus weakening the authors conclusion. Secondly, the author ass...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 440, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this scenario' or 'these scenarios'?
Suggestion: this scenario; these scenarios
... making the observation more skewed. If these scenario is found true, the conclusion of the au...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2365.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73947895792 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50341752988 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.394789579158 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 733.5 705.55239521 104% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0875779798 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.25 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.95 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30344918557 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134597323312 0.0743258471296 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105241928767 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.20152214534 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0812476164813 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.