haykman27

The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner. "Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. In the preceding statement the author claims that the increased number of skateboarders is the main reason for the business downturn in Central Plaza. Accordingly, skateboarding should be banned there in order to overcome the crisis and improve the business. Though her claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumptions. Based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept her argument as valid. First of all, the fact that there is a coincidence between the raising number of skateboarders and decreasing number of shoppers, does not necessarily mean that those two phenomena are related. It is possible that there are other factors explaining recent negative changes in the business. For example, decreased average income of the population or increased average prices could be other reasonable explanations. As the author does not discuss other possible causes for such a situation, this is a serious flaw in the argument. Second, the author fails to explain the relationship between the number of skateboarders and the amount of garbage in the plaza. Skateboarders are not the only ones who may be responsible for disorders. For instance, it is possible that there has been a dramatic rise in crime all over the country, and Central Plaza is not an exception. Similarly, the number of bums in public places might have risen and thus, resulted in such a situation. Hence, the information about vandalism in the plaza without any supportive information does not strengthen the author's argument at all. Finally, the author fails to consider what real impact the prohibition of skateboarding may have on the business. It may be that the skateboarders are those who mainly shop at the plaza stores. Skateboarding and shopping are not mutually exclusive, and people can easily combine these two activities. If this is the case in Central Plaza then the forbiddance of skateboarding will result in even decreased level of the business. While the author does have several key issues with her argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say the entire argument is without base. The author could provide statistics on the major local economic and social changes for the observed period that might have affected the business of the plaza. Similarly, she could compare Central Plaza with other local shopping centers to see whether the downturn is idiosyncratic or not. Another improvement would be to conduct a survey investigating the percentage of skateboarders among all shoppers. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, she could improve her argument significantly. In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render her conclusion invalid. It cannot be said without more evidence and support that the prohibition of skateboarding will result in increased levels of the business. If the author truly hopes to change her readers' minds on the issue she would have largely restructure her argument, fix the flaws in her logic, clearly explicate her assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things her poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.