The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner."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

The author of the statement above advocates the prohibition of the skateboarding in Central Plaza. The recommendation is based on a premise that there is a negative link between skateboarders coming to Plaza and the shoppers. Furthermore, there is an increased vandalism which again the author imputes to skateboarders. Therefore, in order for Central plaza to have more shoppers the author made that recommendation. The argument needs to be provided with answers to certain vital questions to be clear.

First, the owner of the Central Plaza store needs to ask whether any relation exists between the increasing of the skateboarders and declining of the costumers; are shoppers feel unsafe being in the same place with the skateboard users? May be not. It is possible that most of the customers are fans of skateboarding and not only they are not afraid of them, they like to see people skateboarding in the Plaza. Furthermore, if the shoppers consist of those who are skateboard users, the ban would worsen the loss of costumers. If this is the case, conversely, attracting more skateboarders might augment the sales.

Secondly, it should be evinced directly that who are responsible for the vandalism and then wrongdoers should be punished accordingly. Even if the vandals are among skateboards, the author should ask whether a ban would make the situation better or worse. In all likelihood all of the skateboarders are not vandals. By prohibiting all skateboards indiscriminately, the unfair prohibition might encourage more skateboards to become vandals to respond the ban negatively. Elimination of vandalism, which is one of the main pillars of the argument, might not be taken place merely by the use of law force. If the force of law was powerful, in the first place it would dissuade individuals from vandalism as an obvious outlaw.

Finally, the author needs evidence showing whether there is any alternative explanation why the customers are on a decline. It is possible that fewer people are coming to the Plaza because of a financial crisis in the country. It is possible that another marketplace is drawing most of the Central Plaza costumers to itself as a competitor. It is also possible that even the population is decreased in the marketing area of the Central Plaza that fewer people are coming to the plaza. If these are the case, the rise in the skateboarding is only a coincidence and with or without prohibition of the skateboarding in the plaza, the customer trend may not be changed.

In the final analysis I found this argument replete with ambiguous points. The lack of enumerated evidences renders the argument open to different explanations. Therefore, the conclusion which is based on such an inconclusive argument cannot be tenable.