- 最后登录
- 2015-6-3
- 在线时间
- 518 小时
- 寄托币
- 954
- 声望
- 79
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 208
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 724
- UID
- 3261105
- 声望
- 79
- 寄托币
- 954
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-28
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 208
|
Argument 65
When Stanley Park first opened......
35min 字数487 3错别字
In order to substantiate the recommendation that Stanley Park should provide more benches so that the unused open areas could be suitable for socializing and more people could be attracted, the author cites the statistics from some cameras which shows that the visitors to Stanley Park is only about one third of visitors to Carlton Park. Also, he/she points out the fact that Carlton Park provides people with benches, while Stanley Park doesn't. Though plausible at first glance, the argument is ill-convincing because of its unfounded evidences and assumptions.
The first thing is that the author cites the recordings of a camera to show the number of visitors to Stanley Park is very small, compared to 150 people visiting Carlton Park every weekday. However, what the camera records is an average of 50 cars per day. The author simply compares '50 cars' to '150 people', without giving any information about how many people are there in one car on average. Considering the fact that people often like to drive their whole families to the parks, there is a high chance that there are at least 3 or 4 people on one car, making the number of visitors to Stanley Park greater than that of Carlton Park. Unless the author could demonstrate that the average number of people on one car is smaller than 3, we cannot simply draw a conclusion that Stanley Park is no longer popular.
Moreover, in further support of his/her argument, the author talks of the ample seating in Carlton Park. Even if the assumption that Stanley Park isn't as popular as Carlton Park is true, it is still too hasty to conclude that the main reason of Carlton Park's success is its benches. Although Carlton Park provides ample seating while Stanley doesn't, the author fails to give credible evidences to show a concrete connection between the benches and the park's popularity. In fact, there are many other factors which might have a significant influence. For instance, Stanley Park might not be as clean as Carlton Park, or Carlton Park's location in the heart of the business district has made it superior. To make the argument more convincing the author must firstly exclude all the other possible factors.
The last but not least important, building upon the assumption that Stanley Park is indeed less popular than Carlton Park because Carlton Park provides benches, the recommendation might still be not useful enough. Simply providing more benches won't make Stanley Park any better than Carlton, and many visitors tend to visit the park they are used to go to. In order to become popular again, Stanley Park should make more developments, such as hiring more safety people, or building more facilities.
In conclusion, the argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning. To make the argument more thorough and logically convincing, the author should give more persuasive evidences and take every possibility into account.
|
|