"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 Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the numb

The author’s argument that number of shoppers in Central Plaza has a direct relation with the number of skateboarders is flaw. In the attempt to strength his conclusion, the author uses vague words to state a relation between the number of shoppers and the popularity of skateboarding. Furthermore, the author does not provide enough evidence to support his statement that litter and vandalism is a consequence of skateboarding, lastly he fails when he draws a strong conclusion predicting that banned skateboarding will increase number of shoppers.

First the author claims words such us “increase dramatically” or “steadily decreasing”, this words could have various meanings to several readers, due to a lack of an actual number. For instance: It could be that “increasing dramatically” means that two years ago, there was four skateboarders and that today is five skateboarders, in this case the actual number is not big enough to state a conclusion. Consequently, the author needs to provide a number that clearly states that there is either a significant increase on the number of stake borders and a substantial decrease in the number of shoppers.

Second, the author doesn’t provide enough evidence to support his premise that litter and vandalism is a consequence of skateboarding. For example: It could be that shoppers are the ones who are responsible for littering, because there is a lack of garbage cans in Central Plaza, in which case it has nothing do skateboarding. Furthermore, vandalism can be a consequence of lack of police coops that used to protect that zone, hence skateboarders wouldn’t be the cause of vandalism. Thus, the conclusion needs to be strengthened by providing evidence that skateboarders are related an in fact they are the only cause of vandalism and littering.

Third, the author makes a strong conclusion claiming that prohibiting skateboarding will return to previous high levels of shoppers. By doing so he misses to consider that maybe shoppers are going to CP because they like to see skateboarders because it is attractive to them while they shop, in which case prohibiting skateboards occurrence would be disadvantageous for the CP business. Thus, the author needs to strength his premise by providing information on the acceptability of shoppers and skateboarders.

By ways in conclusion the statement could be fairly strengthened if the author provides an actual number on the increase of skateboarders and decrease of shoppers in CP, additionally he needs to claim specific information on studies that support that littering and vandalism are a consequence of skateboarding. Finally he needs to provide extra-information on the influence of skateboarders in shopper’s decisions. Altogether, in its current form, the argument is flaw.