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

The letter's author recommends to lift the prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza as an effective means to restore the former glory of Central Plaza. The author reasons that Monroe Park where no ban applied for skateboarding has no problem with litter and vandalism compared to the problematic situation in Central Plaza where prohibition existed for two years, thereby the former glory of the plaza can be restored according to situation in Monroe Park. The argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author makes certain dubious assumptions about the source of litter and vandalism in both plaza and park. It would be more convincing if all litter and vandalism were introduced by skateboarder, nonetheless, apparently consumer in the plaza also has a strong possibility to throw away garbages when they gourmet a snack for rest as well as the ones who play park out are prone to cause vandalism in the plaza. That can also count for Monroe Park's lacking in litter and damage of the park with no restraints on skateboarders. As a result, perhaps skateboarders are not actually responsible for the litter and vandalism which may substantially caused by consumers unless the author of the letter provides evidence to prove the littering and damaging behavior is due to skateboarders.

Secondly, the mere fact that Monroe Park with no prohibition has no problem with litter and vandalism is scant evidence that by lifting the prohibition in plaza can the plaza restore its former glory. Perhaps there is less visitor in the Park which brings no indication about the increasing of visitors in Central Plaza. Or perhaps another plaza was newly built which is even more attractive and enjoyable drew most attention of people, thereby rendering fewer customers going to Central Plaza. Under either scenario, adopting the author's recommendation may frustrate skateboarders leading to even much fewer visitors rather than increasement of visitor in the plaza.

Thirdly, even if there is only slight increase of people visiting the plaza, the conclusion that prohibition is useless cannot be easily drawn. Additional optional reasons can also account for such a situation. For example, the nation is facing a economical depression in the recent two years so that definitely no more or even less people want a tour in any plaza let along the Central Plaza which may have done pretty well to maintain the number of consumer or even seen growth. Or perhaps with the development of online shopping, of course people no longer need to bother going shopping in the plaza owing to the convenience of the Internet. Since the author provides no firm evidence about the unnecessary prohibition in the plaza, I do not find the author's argument in the least bit compelling.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author has to show evidence proving the litter and vandalism was actually introduced by skateboarders. Moreover, the possible relation between Monroe Park and Central Plaza is obscured within the argument which requires more evidence to analyse the relation and draw firm conclusion. The author must also prove the useless of prohibition in the plaza in order to recommend to lift the prohibition.