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

Central Plaza. It is predicted that implementation of the policy will inevitably lead to revitalizing of the business in the Plaza. This recommendation is buttressed by evidence which should be carefully scrutinized in order to gauge the soundness of the argument.

It is the fact that during previous two years the number of buyers in Central Plaza has significantly declined, at the same time, the number of skateboard users has skyrocketed. The owners of the businesses in Central Plaza tend to accuse the users of the decline. However, is it only plausible explanation? In fact, many factors which were not taken into consideration by the author may appreciably impact on the decline. For example, the country economy may undergo a stagnation and thus people are not able to spend much money of purchases. Additionally to it, a possibility exists that a rival mall was erected nearby. If this new mall gives more assortment for customers or better service, the Central Plaza shoppers may be lured by the rival mall. Both these examples point on the fact that some other factors may lead to the Central Plaza's problems and the increase in the usage of skateboards is a mere coincidence.

Moreover, the author of the letter avers that the increase in the amount of litter and vandalism is caused by the users of skateboards. At the same time, perhaps the fact that local area has become abandoned by the shoppers may attract the skateboard users. In other words, perhaps the author of the letter make a correlation/causation mistake. The argument might have been stronger had the author proved that vandalism and litter are caused by users of skateboards. Till we are not have this information, it may be a mere coincidence and the skateboarders should be considered as blameless.

Besides, the argument claims that the fulfillment of new policy will unescapably revitalize the business in Central Plaza. Unfortunately, the author has failed to back it up properly. The negative effect on skateboarders on the Plaza' attractiveness in not proved. Thus the likeliness exists that problem of the Plaza will not be solved by the proposed policy and consequently, will not have expected result.

In conclusion, it is predicted that if usage of skateboards is prohibited, the Central Plaza would be thrive again. At the same time, the connection between the usage of skateboards and the problems of the business which is located in the Central Plaza is not warranted. Consequently, the implementation of the policy may not lead to expected results.