"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 numb

Prohibiting skateboarding to increase business is very simple point of view. The author uses vague phrases such as “dramatic increase” to explain the situation instead of giving a strong proof to show a relation between the number of skateboarders and increasing vandalism and the amount of litter and decreasing business and number of shoppers in Central Plaza. The author also fails when he draws such a strong conclusion because he generalized his thought based on weak evidences.

First, decreasing business can have other reasons. A lot of things can happen in two years. Maybe people go to another place to do their shopping which is nearer than Central Plaza or provides materials and thing in higher quality. Another reason that can be mentioned is that maybe store owners have raised costs during the past two years and people would rather not to buy anything from them. In other words maybe the shoppers themselves have affected their business, not the skateboarders.

Second, how he is sure that vandalism is done by skateboarders? It’s just a hobby. Even if it is done by skateboarders, forbidding the action is not a suitable way because vandals would find another way to do that or even they can do a worse action.

Third, the author could use enough evidences to support his claim. He could use charts and clear statistics to show this relation. He even could make a questionnaire to know people’s idea about skateboarders and their attitude, shoppers and costs in Central Plaza. He could even ask people what is the reason of increasing vandalism and the amount of litter in the area in their own opinion to get a better point of view of the problem.

Finally, this conclusion cannot convince the reader because it is simplistic. It seems logical at the first glance but when we look at it a bit deeper; it has many weak points that cannot be connivance. It seems that the author has stated his personal opinion to make situation better, without any examination and even question.