argument 63 先谢谢大家的指导了!

ivyshoulUID: 195537

总觉得特罗嗦啊~~~~~句式又千篇一律,不懂得变化啊,郁闷~~~~各位请提点提点,谢谢咯!

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 more
benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces
suitable for socializing.


The author claims that the popularity of Stanley Park confronted a serious decline recently, which can be substantiated by the video camera records last month that only an average 50 cars visited the park every day. Compared to Carlton park, a park with ample seating in the heart of the business district and have more than 150 visitors on weekdays, he/she argues that Stanley should provide more benches to convert some of the unused open areas into socializing places. Though the author seems quite worries about the “decline” and wants to do something to amend it, he/she suffers some critical flaws, which serve to undermine the credibility of the “decline”, as well as the way to amend it.


The major problem of the argument is a haste conclusion that Stanley Park is losing popularity, which I find quite unconvincing based on the mere video camera records. The mere number 50 cannot reveal a drop in car-visitors. What is the correspondent statistical data when the park was first put to use, a period of popularity as the author deems? Without a comparison of data of the two periods, the author is quite unwarranted to say car-visitors are losing. Admit that there are indeed fewer cars visiting the park these days, it cannot ensure fewer car-visitors. What are the types of these cars? What is the average number of visitors each car? Perhaps nowadays people like to hold family parties in the park thus they drive larger cars so as to carry more people at one time, while in early times of Stanley, mostly only lovers drove there hence one car only carried two persons. Even given that Stanley actually faces a time of dropping car-visitors, again the author commits a lack of comprehensive thinking. Total visitors consist of people other than car-visitors. As mentioned in the argument that Stanley is the largest park in town, so it is quite likely that it’s a place of well-preserved natural beauty. So the citizens tend to visit it on foot or by pedestrian to protect as well as enjoy the natural beauty. Moreover, accompany with a raising conscience of environment protection these days, it is possible that more and more car-visitors are turning into foot-visitors that in fact Stanley Park is enjoying a merry increase of total visitors, not a drop claimed by the arguer. In addition, confess the video camera records do reveal a decline of total visitors last month, still it is far too quick to say that Stanley is losing popularity. One month is a time-frame too short to draw such a big conclusion. Probably last month is the most severe month of the year that the weather was too harsh for going to parks. The argument will improve when the arguer focus on these alternatives ruled out above and carry out some careful and thorough examines.


Based on the already proved presumptuous assertion that Stanley loses attractiveness, the author also recommend in the argument that Stanley should provide more benches as Carlton Park. However, the mere fact he/she relies on to persuade us is quite misleading. First of all, the author commits a same mistake of numbers as discovered above. Again, the mere number 150 cannot support the connotation that Carlton Park is more popular than Stanley. The author seems completely omits the fact that Carlton is “in the heart of the business district” and also the statistical data is gathered on weekdays. It is possible that most of these “150” are business people do some walking after lunch, as well as that Carlton Park is not at all popular except lunch time on weekdays and weekends, while due to the natural beauty of Stanley, the largest park in town, citizens all over the town are fond of it. Again the author needs to consider these situations to strengthen his/her argument.


Even if Carlton Park is indeed more popular, the conclusion that adding more benches to turn some of the open areas to socializing places will do good to raise Stanley’s charm is somewhat ridiculous. There is no evidence in the argument that people are so fond of the ample seating in Carlton that it is indeed one reason of vital importance why they visit it. There are many alternatives the author fails to consider, including the location of the park, the convenient transportation, its quietness in the very heart of business district and so on. Once more the arguer makes a false analogy that Stanley should learn from Carlton to add more benches. He/she fails to consider the specific circumstances of these two different parks. Provided that most visitors of Carlton take advantages of benches, the situation of Stanley can be quite different. Maybe Stanley is a place of nice grassland and woods that citizens do not mind, or perhaps even willing to sit on the unused open areas, while benches will stain the natural beauty. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the argument that citizens complain the lack of benches in Stanley. What’s good to add more when there is already enough? Any of the scenarios, if true, will serve to undermine the argument.


To sum up, the author fails to rule out strong evident to say that Stanley Park is losing popularity that improvement is needed, nor does he prove that Carlton is popular and people go there because there are ample seats to lead to the conclusion that Stanley Park should add more benches. To make his/her assumption valid, the arguer had better think more carefully and comprehensively.

ivyshoulUID: 195537

还有啊,因为罗里罗嗦地,结果严重超时... :mad:

ivyshoulUID: 195537

呼~果然是写长了大家都不愿意看么... :(

乒乓球爱上九月UID: 162925

帮你顶一下 你也要帮别人看看嘛