5. Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering

closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists.
These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to
them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove.
Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the
edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even
grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open
for everyone to use.”

Please type your subject in the School Subject box. Any other words are likely to delay responses from a teacher who knows that subject well.

Please note that we don't do students' homework for them. Be sure to go back into your textbook or use a good search engine. http://hanlib.sou.edu/searchtools/

Once YOU have come up with attempted answers to YOUR questions, please re-post and let us know what you think. Then someone here will be happy to comment on your thinking.

The author of this letter to the editor is expressing concerns about the Park Commission's consideration of closing North Park Drive for the benefit of joggers and bicyclists. They argue that these fitness enthusiasts are essentially asking for exclusive use of Walnut Grove, which would inconvenience others who want to have picnics in the park. The author hopes that the Commission will decide to keep the whole park open for everyone to enjoy.

To analyze and evaluate the author's argument, we can break it down into the following elements:

1. Closing North Park Drive: The author is opposed to the closure of North Park Drive. To understand the reasoning behind this decision, we can gather information on the potential reasons given by the Park Commission, such as safety concerns, promoting outdoor activities, or creating a designated space for joggers and bicyclists.

2. Private use by fitness enthusiasts: The author believes that closing North Park Drive would grant joggers and bicyclists exclusive access to Walnut Grove. To investigate this claim, we can review any proposed arrangements for shared usage of the park or consider alternatives that would allow both activities to coexist.

3. Inconvenience for picnickers: The author raises the concern that closing North Park Drive would require picnickers to park at the edge of the park and carry their supplies over. To verify this claim, we can examine the potential impact on parking availability and access to picnic areas.

4. Keeping the park open for everyone: The author concludes by advocating for the Commission to maintain the entire park open for all visitors. To assess the reasoning behind this perspective, we can consider the park's purpose, existing usage patterns, and the benefits of inclusivity versus specialization.

By exploring these aspects, we can better understand the author's viewpoint and evaluate the feasibility of their argument.