Argument 65，求狠拍

SybeDancer

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. ”


In this argument, the author recommends Stanley Park to proffer ample seating in order to attract as many citizens as Carlton Park does. The premise provided for this argument is that only around 50 cars are recorded every day in the park’s parking lots, and that the Calton Park provides more benches to visitors. Although the argument is well presented and appears to be sound at the first glance, a close scrutiny will reveal that the conclusion is based on some dubious assumptions and the reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy in the nature of evidence provided.


To begin with, the argument rests on a gratuitous assumption that only roughly 50 cars of visitors recorded by the cameras means the unpopularity of Stanley Park. However, it is very possible that only a small portion of visitors park their cars in the parking lots of the Stanley Park. Due to the high parking fee, most visitors choose to park their cars near the Stanley Park. There is also a possibility that most people come to the park as a family on big cars such as SUV, so that even though the number of cars arriving to the park is about 50, the number of visitors is much bigger than that, hence without the detailed number of visitors of the Stanley Park per day, the argument seems unpersuasive.


Besides, the argument unfairly assumes that the popularity of Calton Park is caused directly by the ample seating provided. For the arguer fails to realize that correlativity does not sufficiently lead to causal nexus. It is likely that Calton Park’s location is perfect. Located in the heart of business district, where a dense population exists, Calton Park should deservedly attract more citizens. It is also likely that Calton Park provides a peaceful and appealing environment full of vegetation, so that business people normally work around the park love to take a rest in the park after work. Therefore, without the strong evidence concerning the real reason of popularity of Calton Park, the argument seems invalid.


Finally, the author also makes a tenuous assumption that Calton Park is comparable to Stanley Park. Perhaps the position of two parks is so different that two parks have totally different set of target customers. For example, Stanley Park is a place especially famous for its natural environment, so that people who like to get away from the noisy city and bask in a peaceful time, while Calton Park is a social place for business people. Although providing enough benches in Calton Park is a big merit for it, this approach could have insignificant effect on Stanley Park, since people don’t come to talk with others anyway. Therefore, without the detail information about the characteristics of two parks, the argument seems unconvincing.


To sum up, the argument is far from compelling enough to substantiate that more benches should be provided in Stanley Park. Before any final decisions are made, more specific evidence such as the detailed number of visitors of Stanley Park, the real reason of popularity of Calton Park as well as the position of two parks should be put forward to make the author’s argument more trenchant and forceful.

普渡哥

In this argument, the author recommends Stanley Park to proffer ample seating in order to attract as many citizens as Carlton Park does. The premise provided for this argument is that only around 50 cars are recorded every day in the park’s parking lots, and that the Calton Park provides more benches to visitors.

这句话有语法问题。

SybeDancer

多谢版主，请问问题出在哪呢？麻烦提示一下~

竹林中人

感觉你的结构和内容都还可以的