In this argument, the arguer advocates that the business in Central Plaza will be recovered by prohibiting skateboarding in that Plaza. Although this argument seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact filled of flaws. The reasons are stated as follows.
In the first place, the arguer assumes that there is negative relationship between the shoppers in Central Plaza and the popularity of skateboarding. Although this is entirely possible, the arguer offers no evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is very likely that the decreasing of shoppers is caused by other factors but the popularity of skateboarding. An appropriate example is not very far away to reach. For example, maybe there are new plazas which were built two years ago near Central Plaza with better service and with more convenience traffic location. The shoppers are prefer newer plazas than the old one that caused the decreasing shoppers in Central Plaza. The arguer’s reasoning is flawed unless the arguer can convince me that those and other possible scenarios are unlikely to exist.
In the second place, the arguer assume that the skateboarding users who play in the plaza lead the decreasing shoppers in Central Plaza. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily this case, and the arguer does not supply any evidence to confirm this assumption. It is possible that the skateboarding users only play skateboarding during night after all the shops closed and it is just a small group of people who are playing it. To illustrate this point clearly, let us take a look at the following representative example. It is just a small group of skateboarding users in a corner of the plaza and they only show up during night, then it is no effect to the shoppers in the Central Plaza. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative explanations, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.
The last but not the least important, even if the evidence turns out to support...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document