第三篇argument求批改！！><

bert2177UID: 3468997

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 argument stated that the earlier built public park once constantly used was no longer popular through some reasons, and a solution was thereby proposed by the author. However, with a further examination, the argument is filled with flaws and holes that can only make the conclusion less cogent.

To start with, the argument proposed that Stanley Park was no longer heavily used with the drop of popularity in the parking lot. However, without more detailed information, the validity of evidence presented by cameras may be questionable. The video was recording car visitors rather than all visitors in Stanley Park, which may leads to a wrong result. As the author didn't provide any evidence showing that car visitors take up most of the amount of people in the park and no other means can people reach Stanley Park, the real number of citizens in the park may be larger than what was showed in the recording. Thus, more people can go to Stanley Park by bus or other transports, which wouldn't be recorded by cameras in the parking lot. In such circumstance, the average of 50 cars per day to the park may be a misleading number.

What's more, the decrease of visitors cannot be well demonstrated simply with the amount of guests in a month. Only by comparing "most heavily used" and "50 cars a day within a month", a conclusion of diminishing guests could hardly be stated because the number may varied from 1 or 2 cars to more than 100 cars per day if the number of cars are used to mount the visitors to Stanley Park. Therefore, the evidence provided by video cameras in the parking lot may not be persuasive enough to show the number of people touring Stanley Park is reducing.

Furthermore, even though the author tried to offer an example by listing the number of people in Carlton Park a day during weekdays, which is 150, visitors in Stanley Park may still be larger. Usually, a car could contain four passengers, hence, 50 cars would mean 200 people if we assume that each car is fully loaded. As a result, the number of visitors to Stanley Park may be greater than the other one per day. Albeit, an assumption of Carlton Park is more popular is made, thus, the author proposed that the possibility of providing more seats would eventually result in the resurge of popularity of Stanley Park. However, other interpretations can explain the popularity of Carlton Park. First, it's said that Carlton Park is located in the heart of the business district. In other word, the reason why people prefer Carlton Park maybe it's closer to them. Second, although not mention in the argument, the scenes, entertainments or other factors not indicated would probably lead to the prevalent interest towards Carlton Park. Lack of verification, the argument was able to provide a convincing statement that it was the adequacy contributes to the preference of Carlton Park.

In addition, it was assumed in the argument that by increasing seats in Stanley Park, visitors would grow more interests in choosing it than Carlton Park. However, even if the main reason is the difference between the amounts of seats in two parks, no further illustration was offered to demonstrate the assumption. To be optimistic, competence on providing seats would at the same level if Stanley Park adds benches, but popularity of Carlton Park may still overwhelm considering other factors. On the other hand, the imposing of seats may destroy the original harmony in Stanley Park which would lead to fewer guests.

After judging from different aspects and factors involved in the argument, although the author did point out the possibility, the argument failed to present valid and persuasive evidences and warranted assumptions, without which the proposal remains groundless. Therefore, the passage is of no significant in increasing seats or visitors in Stanley Park.