The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza."Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism

The argument presents a letter from the owner of a skate shop in central plaza to the editor. The Owner of the skate board shop gives a compendium of, why skateboarding had been banned and the presumed negative impact of skateboarding in central plaza. The author concludes with a recommendation regarding the revoking the ban of skateboarding to restore Central Plaza back to its former glory. The argument cites the reason of the current status of customer flux in central plaza and the status quo of vandalism and litter. The argument is rife with loop holes, making it weak and questionable. The author states reasons, but fails to provide any evidences with respect to the conclusions. It raises many questions, that are not addressed by the argument, answers to which could help to analyze the validity of the authors recommendation.

The author states that, there has been only a slight increase in the number of visitors to the Central Plaza and the main agenda for the ban on skateboarding, to reduce littering and vandalism, is the evident. The argument fails to provide the statistical change in the increase of customers. The question regarding the term 'small increase' have not been addressed, therefore weakening the claim of the author. It may be possible that there had been a increase by 6 or 60 percent, the answer to which, would help to evaluate the validity of the reason cited by the author. Furthermore, the author fails to mention, the records on which conclusion regarding the change in customer footfall, is based. The argument fails to clear the obscurity over the record data and provides no evidences of the conclusions made, thereby weakening the argument as a whole. Furthermore, the argument suggests about the persistent issue of litter and vandalism in Central Plaza, but fails to provide evidence for such a conclusion. The argument raises questions regarding the total change in the cases of vandalism and litter. It may be possible that there has been a drastic fall in the number of vandalism cases and also decrease in the total amount of litter accumulated at the end of every week compared to the period where the ban was not imposed. Furthermore, the argument raises question regarding the validity of the conclusion by the author and maintains obscurity, due to the lack of evidences. The answers regarding the statistics of the reason of the author would help to evaluate the validity of the author's position and furthermore, based on the answers to these questions the argument can be warranted or annulled.

The argument further suggests that Monroe park, has no ban on skateboarding and has no problems with litter and vandalism. The author fails to justify and provide evidence regarding the validity and relevance of the statistics of Monroe Park. It may be possible that the same idea of no ban on skateboarding may prove to be pernicious for Central Plaza. Furthermore, the argument raises questions regarding how disparate Monroe Park is with respect to Central Plaza. May be Monroe Park has very less footfall compared to that of Central Plaza. Also, it may be possible that there is strict vigilance on the activity taking place in Monroe Park, having security cameras, patrol guards and hefty fines. The restrictions could be the cause of Monroe park having no problems. The answer to these questions regarding the comparison of Monroe Park and Central Plaza, would enable the proper evaluation of the difference caused by the imposing of the ban. Furthermore, due to the lack of answers to the above stated questions about Monroe Park, the claim of the author is made inconsequential.

Furthermore, the author suggests that to restore Central Plaza to its previous glory, there should be a revoking of the ban on skateboarding. The argument fails to address questions regarding the various other causes for the problems of vandalism and low number of footfalls. It may be possible that there are better places in the surrounding, which people visit and opt out of visiting Central Plaza. Furthermore, the vandalism and litter cases may be prevalent, due to the inept capabilities of the security and cleanliness teams at Central Plaza. The argument raises questions regarding the other possibilities of no increase in the footfall and persistent cases of vandalism and litter. With answers to these questions, the validity of the authors recommendation can be evaluated, without which the argument does not make a convincing case.

In conclusion, the author states the reasons, but does not provide specific evidences for supporting the reasons. Furthermore, due to the lack of proof and validity of the stated reasons, the conclusions made by author are inconsequential. Therefore the questions mentioned in the previous paragraphs, if not addressed, makes the argument unwarranted. The answers to the stated questions can hamper or bolster the argument of the shop owner, however, with the answers the argument does not form a cogent case and would be neglected.