本帖最后由 windflycc 于 2009-9-6 19:11 编辑
63.When Stanley Park first opened, it was the largest, most heavily used 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 is Carlton Park, the town will obviously need to provide morebenches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing.
当Stanley公园第一次开放的时候，它是本市最大，使用频率最高的公园。现在它仍是最大的，但使用频率已经不再高了。上个月在公园停车场架设的摄像机发现公园的受欢迎度下降了：录像显示平均每天只有50辆车。与之相比，位于商业区中心地带的Carlton小公园在工作日每天游客超过150人。一个很明显的差异就是Carlton公园与Stanley公园不同，它提供充足的座椅。
因此，如果Stanley公园想要和Carlton获得同等的受欢迎度的话，显然应该提供更多的长椅，从而把一些未加利用的开阔地转化成适于人们交往的空间。
1。没有说明p比s受欢迎 50辆车可能有很多人，也许一辆车就是一个家庭。而且很多人可能不开车过来，那在停车场的摄像头就拍不到了. 而且一个月无法表明，也许上个月有什么特殊情况，比如休假很少。工作日不代表周末人多，平均一下。
2。没有说明受欢迎是因为椅子
有可能因为密集人口数量，市中心。有可能因为其其余的设施,有可能因为宽松的规定。
3。没有说明可以推广到s:小公园和它没有可比性，或许小公园位于商业中心，日常休闲地。人们工作累了，中午午休都会来休息下，吃点东西，导致了需要许多的座椅。Stanley park 可能位于较为偏僻的地方，因为它最大，人们多半下班或周末去那散步锻炼，或者全家在草地上野餐之类，座椅使用率可能并不高，而且或许它已经有足够的座椅了，再增加也没有太大用。
The arguer in this passage suggests that more benches should be provided in Stanley Park in order to improve its popularity with their citizens. The arguer supports his/her suggestion based on the fact the recordings showed an average of only 50 cars per day in Stanley park last month while more than 150 people on a typical weekday in tiny Carlton Park. He further claims that it is the ample seating in Carlton Park that makes it more popular. The argument contains false analogy and several logic and data flaws thus the suggestion is impossible for readers to be convinced.
First of all, the author fails to prove that the participation in Stanley Park is lower than Carlton Park. 50 cars in a park cannot be compared directly with 150 people in another park. Perhaps all the cars in parking spot are SUV or Vans that can take seven people. That will lead to 350 people in a total in Stanley Park and obviously more than 150 people in Carlton Park. In fact, it is very possible for a car carry more than three people on average. The author also fails to count people those reach Stanley Park by other means of transportation such as bus, bike and walking. In addition, high participation in Carlton Park on weekday doesn’t mean the same on weekends. The average participation may be even lower.
If the assumption of higher participation in Carlton Park is valid, there is no evidence that the high participation all owes to the ample seats. The author mentioned that Carlton park is located in the heart of a business district, thus there might be naturally higher population density around the park. It is also possible that Carlton park has other convenient facilities such as restaurant, coffee shop or convenient shop. Perhaps Carlton Park is free of regulations such as prohibiting pets in the park. Stanley Park on the contrary, may have more such regulations which exclude many visitors.
Even if one accepts the ample seating providing is the unique reason for the popularity of Carlton Park, same tactic may not apply to Stanley Park.
Still the location of Carlton Park in business district may make it a good place for people to have a short rest. The office worker of nearby company may visit here to have some coffee or food or just relax in the interval of one’s work, thus providing ample seating are necessary. Stanley Park may be located in the suburb; people go there after work or during the weekends to do some exercise. Some families may have a picnic on the park lawn. Therefore, more seats may not be able to raise the popularity of the park as they are not even necessarily needed.
In sum, the arguer fails to convince the readers that the root cause of the less popularity of Stanley park is because of low number of seats or even validity of the reduce in popularity itself hasn’t been proved. To make this passage more convincible, the arguer might need to perform some survey on visitors of two parks and provide the result as the evidence to support his suggestion (recommendation), | 
发表于 2009-9-2 00:56:32
签到领寄托币
GO
转发
