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 vandali

The argument claims that the city council prohibited skateboardig in Central Plaza two years ago since they believed that vandalism and litter problem were caused by skateboarders. However, there has been a little increase in the number of clientele after the prohibition and the problems still exist. The argument concludes that the prohibition should be lifted to restore Central Plaza to its good days. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates the facts and provides a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the prohibition is adopted and there is no skateboard user nearby Central Plaza. The argument is stretched and undeveloped. For example, even though the skateboard users do not frequent the area for skateboarding, they might visit there because they enjoy gathering and spending time in Central Plaza. Moreover, it might be the case that due to inadequate control in the neighborhood, people use Central Plaza for skateboarding although it is illegal. Hence, people might not prefer to come Central Plaza because of still existing problems that are created by the skateboarders. The continuation of the problems might be an indicator of this law is not adopted properly. The argument would be much clearer if it explicitly stated the convincing details that show the prohibition is applied.

Second, the argument asserts that there are skateboard users in Monroe Park but there is no problem with litter and vandalism in there. The argument is again weak and unconvincing as the argument does not demonstrate any clear connection between Monroe Park and Central Plaza. To illustrate, it might be the case that the security of Monroe Park is better than the ones in Central Plaza, hence they warn the people who pollute the area. In addition, skateboard users who visit Monroe Park and Central Plaza might be different. For instance, users in Monroe Park might have higher level of education and they might be more respectful to other people and laws. The argument would be more convincing if it underlined similarities between Monroe Park and Central Plaza.

Finally, the argument assumes that lifting the prohibition would restore the conditions of Central Plaza. This argument is not supported well. There might be other reasons except the prohibition that causes only a small increase in the number of clientele. For instance, there might be other malls open in the city and people might prefer to frequent there. Moreover, the economic condition of the city might deteriorate and the populace might not be willing to spend money on shopping. Furthermore, even though it is small, there is an increase in the number of clients. Hence, this might be an indicator of the positive impact of the prohibition. Consequently, without convincing details that might bring about Central Plaza not to achieve their target customer levels, lifting the prohibition would be beneficial remains more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore it is unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to know all contributing factors. Without convincing information, the argument remains open to debate.