You said "if we use the agent, the sentence becomes passive voice". I have to disagree. In every one of your examples, the subject of the verb is the patient of the action. Regardless of whether the agent is mentioned, those statements employ the passive voice.
You're asking how to distinguish something that doesn't need to be distinguished. The question of passive vs. active voice is completely different than the question of stative vs. dynamic verbs -- in the same way that the question of how curly your hair is happens to be completely different than the question of how dark your hair is.
In an active voice construction, the subject causes the action. In a passive voice construction, the subject receives the action. It's easy to see that all of your sentences are passive voice constructions because its easy to find the active voice equivalents:
Someone parked the car.
Something increased your work volume.
Someone arrested him.
and so on.
Although the stative vs. dynamic distinction exists in English semantics, it isn't present in English grammar. One rule of thumb is that stative verbs do not work well when employing the continuous aspect. For example, "I am knowing the answer" is a poorly-formed sentence because the verb to know is stative. It seems that every one of your passive voice examples uses a dynamic verb.
One car was being parked outside the gate when I left.
Your work volume is being increased during the holidays.
He was being arrested while I calmly walked away.
and so on.
A stative verb can be used in either the active or the passive voice:
My manager knows me to be an excellent employee.
I am known to be an excellent employee.
A dynamic verb can be used in either the active or the passive voice:
I parked the car outside the gate.
The car was parked outside the gate.
So, how do you distinguish between passive and stative? You don't. You distinguish between active and passive. You distinguish between dynamic and stative. You do those two things separately. They are not related to each other.
Now, as to your follow-up question, let's use the dynamic verb to park in the passive voice and indicative mode:
The car was parked -- past tense, indefinite aspect
The car is parked -- present tense, indefinite aspect
The car will be parked -- future tense, indefinite aspect
The car had been parked -- past tense, perfect aspect
The car has been parked -- present tense, perfect aspect
The car will have been parked -- future tense, perfect aspect
Does the meaning change? Yes. Aspect carries a different kind of meaning than tense, but both aspect and tense carry meaning. Tense has to do with location in time. Aspect has to do with a relationship with time. Often tense and aspect are taught as a single, combined thing, but I find them easier to understand when they are examined as separate properties.
Changing the aspect does not change the tense. Changing the aspect does not change the voice. Changing the aspect does not change the nature of the verb, whether stative or dynamic.
Because the perfect aspect has an explicit relationship with time, it makes the most sense when the time frame is also made explicit, as in "The car has been parked there for several weeks" or "The car had been parked there for a month before anyone noticed it."
Whether a verb is stative or dynamic has very little impact on English grammar. Certain verb forms don't make sense for stative verbs, and that's about it. The properties of voice, tense, aspect and mode have a great deal of impact. Changing any one of those requires changing something about the verb's form.
Let me see if I can clearly summarize all of that.
- Which of the example sentences are passive voice? All of them.
- Which of them are indicative sentences? All of them.
- Which can be interpreted as having a participial subject complement? All of them.
- Which are stative? None of them.
Most of those are unrelated items. One pair is an identity. The passive voice construction is a subset of the participial subject complement construction.
The passive voice exists for a reason; as far as I can tell all languages have some way of creating a construction equivalent in semantics (and pragmatics) to the English passive.
At the semantic level, the passive voice operates on transitive verbs (=2 or more arguments; note that the subject is included as an argument) and "promotes" the transitive object to a subject. The meaning is equivalent semantically (barring idiomatic usages), as the subject of a passive construction is still the object of that transitive verb. Consider these two sentences below, where the event (=what happens to the object) is the same, in either active or passive voice.
1) John ate [the cake]
2) [The cake] was eaten (by John).
In either 1) or 2), this information is the same: there was a salient cake and it was eaten. However, note that the passive allows one to drop out the agent.
So, why would one use the passive voice over the active? Perhaps the writer/speaker wants to give attention to the object. In English the subject position is often where topics go, and so is considered the "important" element. Promoting the object to a subject via passive allows one to emphasize this. Another possible case: we simply don't know who the agent was or perhaps the agent doesn't really matter. The passive is also helpful for generalizing / avoiding assigning blame / being polite.
Consider these cases:
3) The trash can was blown over (by the wind).
4) John was really screwed.
5) That project got really messed up. (<= note how it doesn't blame anyone in particular)
In 3), it probably obvious what blew the trash can over (in general people don't go around blowing down trash cans, etc.). For 4), this begins to get idiomatic--we could try to attribute reason(s) why John is not in a good situation, but usually this is secondary to stressing that John is really screwed.
We can apply this reasoning to the example sentence you gave:
6) [Tonight's moon] can be seen from anywhere worldwide.
In this sentence, the fact that the moon is visible from anywhere in the world is being stressed, hence why the writer probably chose to use the passive. We really don't care who is seeing the moon.
You should use the passive when its the idiomatic way to talk about an event (e.g. the agent usually is implied or not important) or when you want to focus on the object of such an event, and therefore promote it to subject position via the passive construction.
Best Answer
The book answer is kind of weird, and arguably changes the meaning of the sentence. I will add that I have only a vague idea of what active and passive voice mean, and can’t tell you whether you succeeded in using passive voice. I’m a native speaker, so I’ve never needed to know the names of these things.
In the active voice sentence: The sentence is talking to a group of people, each and every one of whom can buy a ticket at the counter.
In the book answer, the ‘By You’ significantly changes the meaning from the first sentence. Without that, it means that there is a counter for ticket sales. With the ‘By you’, it implies that a single person is able to buy tickets for a group at the counter. While you is used for both singular and plural, the context here implies it is singular. If it was addressed to a group, I'd expect 'Each of you' or 'all of you'.
Your answer fixes the problem with the book answer. Instead of ‘By you’, you used ‘By all of you’, which shows that you are still addressing the group. ‘By each of you’ might be a little clearer, but either is acceptable in conversation. You are also fine with your placement of the phrase. Both ‘at this counter’ and ‘by all of you’ are referring to bought, so they can go in either order.
The problem with both your answer and the book answer is that you pluralize tickets. If a person can buy one or more tickets, this is fine. The original sentence doesn't say whether or not you can buy multiple tickets, though.
A better answer would preserve the singular of ticket from the first sentence. "A ticket can be bought by each of you at this counter." Here, you need to use each, because each person is only buying a single ticket, as in the first sentence. If you used 'all' instead of 'each' in this sentence, it would mean the group as a whole could only buy one ticket.