"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has

The argument about removing the limitation of skateboarding in the Central Plaza might be tenable at first glance. The author makes a valid argument, one that would be correct, if its premises were true. However, his conclusion relies on the assumptions for which there is no relevant evidence and it uses terms that lack the definition.

First, the author mentions the reasons on the limitation of the skateboarding was the vandalism created, while he doesn't illustrate the various aspects of that vandalism. What kind of problems did the skateboarders cause which prevented visitors from coming to the plaza? How does it cause those visitors to decide not to use the place? The answer to these questions makes a clear reason for that decisions and the issue in which if there is another way of decreasing the problems of the skateboarding instead of omitting it.

Second, the writer claims that removing the skateboarding haven't decreases the problems in the plaza and the visitors haven't increased. However, he doesn't make a strong correlation between the coming visitors to the plaza and its vandalism. May be, people have found better places for being there. May be, in two years, the other good traits of the plaza also be removed and caused visitors don't have past motivation to come there. Similarly, increasing the vandalism might be posed by the other changes in the plaza and the other plays permitted in two years.

Likewise, citing the lack of vandalism in Monroe Park as authorized place for skateboarding, the writer assumes that skateboarding cannot make the vandalism in the plaza either, while, he doesn't interpret and compare the situations of the two places. Perhaps, the visitors to the Monroe Parke are fewer than the plaza and the skateboarding can be played easily without posing any problems for other people. Suppose for example, the space of the park be so vast that various plays be defined across the land without any intersections with and disturbance for visitors.

After all, the argument appears to rely on the premises which haven't supported well. The argument doesn't consist of any explanations of the other uses of the plaza and the changes occurred in the two years. The author easily could be addressed these issues with depicting demographic, social, and economical situation of the visitors and about the physical location and the other uses of the plaza to make more cogent and convincing points on his conclusion