GRE Argument Essay 144
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 arguer recommends that Stanley Park can be made as popular as Carlton Park if the town provides more benches in Stanley Park in order to utilize the open spaces available in the park. The arguer presents two facts in support of the recommendation made. The first fact is that there was an average of 50 cars coming to Stanley Park per day as per the recordings of the mounted video cameras. The arguer compares this with the number of people visiting Carlton Park which is more than 150 per day. The second fact is that Carlton Park provides more seating than Stanley Park. However, the argument fails to convince the reader that the recommendation made is justified due to lack of additional information.
Firstly, it is not necessary that all the visitors coming to Stanley Park come in cars. There may be a sizeable number of citizens who come to the park on two wheelers or who walk down to the park. Moreover, it is likely that the parking lot is a little away from Stanley Park and hence, most people find it convenient to park their cars somewhere else. There is no mention of the fact that the mounted video cameras are fixed or rotating. If the cameras are fixed, then it is likely that there are corners of the parking lot that are not covered by the video cameras. Moreover, a car can accommodate up to six to seven people depending on the type of car it is. Therefore, the number of cars parked in the parking lot cannot be regarded as the only indication for claiming that there has been a drop in the number of visitors to the park. The argument can be substantiated to an extent if it includes additional information that can prove that Stanley Park is no longer heavily used.
Secondly, the location of Carlton Park may be a compelling reason for a substantial number of daily visitors to the park. As it is located in the heart of the business district, it is likely that the park is easily accessible by most people. There is no mention of the location of Stanley Park. Since Stanley Park is the largest park, it is possible that it might be situated away from the town. Therefore, the distance involved in traveling is probably keeping the people from visiting it frequently. Additionally, the arguer does not provide the statistics related to the occupancy of the benches at Carlton Park in order to prove that they are being utilized by the people. It is likely that the benches remain unoccupied as the people are busy moving around the park. In view of the above, it is likely that providing more benches in Stanley Park may not affect its popularity at all as the arguer fails to prove that the benches in Carlton Park are being used by the people.
There may be several reasons for a park’s popularity. The availability of a hygienically clean rest room within the park, swings for children, a counter for refreshments, a small gym and the permission to bring in pets are all factors that significantly contribute to the popularity of a park. Factors like the entry fee for the park and the ambience of the park including well maintained lawns play important roles in increasing the popularity of a park. Therefore, unless the arguer addresses all such factors, the reader cannot be convinced that providing benches in Stanley Park is more than adequate for increasing the popularity of the park.