"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 argument claims that there has been a steady decrease in the number of shoppers in the central plaza over the last two years due to the increasing popularity of skateboarding in the plaza. The argument does not mention the key factors, based on which the argument could be evaluated. To support this argument, the author reasons that the prohibition of skateboarding in the plaza increases the business. However, there is little credible support for the author’s recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.

First of all, the argument assumes that the increase in skateboarding users in the plaza has led to the decrease in business to the store owners in the plaza. This is merely an assumption made without much solid evidence. The author nowhere mentions the correlation between the two. The argument fails to consider other factors that might have contributed to the decrease in business. For example, new plazas/malls might have come up in the surrounding area, that attract more customers by offering better products, discounted prices, quality goods, varieties of products etc. Increase in skateboarding popularity alone cannot be accounted for the loss of sales. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it had explicitly stated how skateboarding has driven the customers out of the stores causing the business to decline.

The author also claims that the amount of litter and vandalism has increased. Vandalism might have increased due to various other factors which are not mentioned clearly in the argument. This could be due to the inefficient maintenance of plaza by the staff. There might have been less stringent actions taken against those causing litter and damage. Again there is no correlation between these reasons and the fact that skateboarding users have caused loss in business. Increase in skateboarding users alone cannot account for this. It could have been clearer if the author had mentioned the factors that directly link the increase in litter and vandalism to increase in popularity of skateboarding and decrease in business.

Finally, the author cites that the prohibition of skateboarding in the plaza will increase the number of customers in the stores thereby increasing the business. However, evaluation of the evidences mentioned in the argument reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several aspects, and raises several questions. For example, how did increase in number of skateboarding users decrease the business in the plaza stores? Which other factors could have contributed for the steady decrease in business? What could be the reasons for increase in the amount of litter and vandalism and how is it related to skateboarding popularity? How does prohibition of skateboarding increase the business? Without providing detailed analysis and convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author that “prohibition of skateboarding would increase the business” is more of a wishful thinking rather than a logical solution to the problem.

In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide concrete evidences, perhaps by way of a reliable survey or detailed analysis of the reasons causing steady decrease in the business of the stores in the plaza .Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about how increase in number of skateboarding users caused the decrease the business in the plaza stores.