Pooja Patel

Argument Topic: 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 the given statement, the author asserts that Stanley Park should provide more benches and
places for socializing to be as popular with their citizens as Carlton Park. Although the argument
seems convincing at first, the unwarranted assumptions make it flawed.

Firstly, the author assumes that the popularity of Stanley Park, according to the number of
visiting cars recorded by the video cameras is dropping, by comparing the number of visitors of
Carlton Park is increasing. However, the author assumes that number of cars is equivalent to
the number of the visitors and concludes the number of visitors on the basis of the number of
the cars recorded, whereas it might not be the case. It might be possible that many people visit
Stanley Park but only few of them owned the car. Also it is possible that people may come to
the Park via other ways of transportations such as buses or subways.

Secondly, the popularity of a park is also depends upon its location. The author has mentioned
that the Carlton Park is situated in the heart of the business district, which logically contributes
to the higher popularity. However, the argument does not indicate the location of the Stanley
Park. If it is located outside the urban area, it would have lower popularity. Moreover it is
undeniable that more than 150 people visit Carlton Park on weekdays; however, statistics does
not show anything about weekends. In a consequence, the incomplete evidences weaken the
argument.

Lastly, the author suggests converting some of the unused areas into socializing venue with
sufficient benches. While whether the people need a new place for socialization is a question as
there are lots of other places for socialization, and the park merely is one of the so many
choices. Plus, we cannot conclude whether the people would like to sit and talk for socializing.
To conclude, the author’s argument is not well supported by the evidences. However, if the
author had provided more evidences to support the argument, then it would have been more
convincing.