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 vandalism tha

The Author of the letter has failed to convince us that in order to restore the Plaza park to its former glory, the law that banned skateboarding in this park shall be removed. Even if the claim may seem logical at first glance, the letter lacks the correct exemplification and illustrative information to prove this claim. The letter, as it stands, is based on questionable assumption and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact that renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing, also there are terms, which lack definition. In what follows, some evidences that are necessary to admit this request has been expressed and elucidated.

The primary issue with this letter lies in its writer’s unsubstantiated premises. First, it is contended that in the past two years after the prohibition of skateboarding in Plaza park the number of visitors has shown a small increase. The question, which comes to mind, is about the usage of the word “small”. The term “small” has to be substitute by a percentage, because it makes an ambiguous feeling in the reader of the letter. If we suppose that the number of visitors prior of the aforementioned law was 100 people, and after that law, the number has increased to 150. Obviously the increased number were just 50, and it is a small number for a change but actually it gives us a 50 percent improvement; therefore, if this trend continues in following years there would be a significant increase in near future.

Secondly, the writer makes a comparison between two parks named: Plaza and Monroe. The author of the letter claimed that as skateboarding is free in Monroe Park and there is no problem with vandalism and litter there, the aforementioned problems are not caused for the sake of skateboarding in Plaza Park. However, the question, which has to be answered here, is that “Do these two parks resemble in all features?” Maybe there are some facilities like cameras or polices in the Monroe Park that obliged the skateboarders follow some special rules or there is a specific place for doing this sport in the park. Actually, the author of the letter has not supported this comparison.

Lastly, the writer concludes that in order to revitalize the Plaza Park and turn back the previous glory to this park the low that prohibited the skateboarding in the park shall be abolished. On the other hand, on may question how it is ensured or guaranteed? Are there any solid evidences or statistics proving this claim? Actually, he/she did not consider any other factor that can contribute to solve the problem, such as adding some attractive stores in Plaza Park.

In conclusion, considering all aspects of the argument, which have been discussed above, the lack in some evidences, reduces the robustness of the letter. If the writer includes all the additional premises, which introduced so far in this article, his/her request would be more thorough and convincing.