Argument 65

jowett1985

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.


======================================================================


1、去了公园没有开车的人没有统计在Stanley Park中
2、是不是所有游客的车都停在Stanley Park的停车场
3、比较的基数不一致
4、去两个公园游玩的人的特点不同，增加长椅不一定对Stanley Park有效


While it might true that the Stanley Park is no longer heavily used and some change should be adopted, the author of this argument doesn't make a cogent inference to validate it. This argument is rife with holes and weak assumptions. Thus, readers can come up with many questions that will weaken or even topple this argument.


First of all, the author asserts that Stanley Park is no longer popular according to the video captured by the cameras mounted in the park's parking lots, which indicates that there are much fewer visitors in Stanley Park comparing with Carlton Park. But it is highly possible that not all visitors of Stanley Park by their own cars, for example, some of them may get there by bus or even walk to that park. So making judgment that Stanley Park is less used than Carlton Park only based on this evidence is not reliable. By the way, not all the personal cars of visitors are parked in the Park's parking lots. Suppose that the Stanley Park's parking lots is too small and thus can not provide enough free parking position for their visitors. Due to this reason, the author's assertion is groundless.


Furthermore, as the author mentioned in its argument, the average amount of visitors of a single is compared with the average visitor number of a typical weekday, which is not rational enough. Considering the location of Carlton Park, which is in the heart of the business district, the visitors number in a weekday should be much bigger than Stanley Park's average visitors number and put these two number together can not illustrate nothing. So unless the author provided additional explanation about these comparison, I can't trust any conclusion upon it.


Finally, the author suggests that in order to increase the usage of Stanley Park, the town should provide more benches, thereby converting some of the unused open areas into spaces suitable for socializing. But this solution may not work for Stanley Park because visitors' purpose to visit these two parks may be distinctive. Duo to different location, main visitors of Carlton Park are business men while visitors in Stanley Park are mainly family members, thus provide more benches like Carlton Park should give no benefit to improve the current situation of Stanley Park.


In conclusion, while it might true that the Stanley Park is no longer heavily used and some change should be adopted, a lot of further information is needed to make a persuasive and cogent argument.

普渡哥

结尾可以好好写写。