argument: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. Man

In the letter,the author claims that the city should lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza and he cites various evidences to justify the recommendation . Although these evidences appear to bolster the author's argument, a meticulous analysis will show otherwise. So the author should answer some specific questions to make the argument more sound:1)Who should responsible for the litter and vandalism?2) Whether M park and central plaza under the same conditions?3) Will plaza return to its previously by admitting skateboarding?

First, if the skateboarding users should responsible for the litter and vandalism just like the author claims,lifting the prohibition may aggravate the situation which will weaken the argument; if they are other people who lead to these bad behaviours, the argument should be supported which will offer skateboarding user a free place to enjoy themselves. However, in this case, the measure cannot improvement surrounding environment situation as the author expected because whether the city lifts the prohibition or not, there are no effects on these people who are not skateboarding users.

Second, the author need to answer whether the central plaza and M park under the same conditions, such as adopting same measures to ensure their surrounding environment and the people who visit M park or plaza have similar environment awareness. If the answer is yes, the argument is more convincing. However if the author cannot substantiate it, it is entirely possible that M park use more rigorous ways to deal with the people who against the rules of protecting environment. Thus, no matter how many skateboarding users there, the environment can keep well all along. In contrast, the governances conducted by plaza are loose so that even if there are only a few people playing skateboard,litter and vandalism may not be avoided. In short, it's indispensable to answer the question to evaluate the argument.

Third, it's also necessary to answer that will plaza return to its previously by admitting skateboarding? The argument will be convincing if the author can substantiate that a great number of people in the vicinity of plaza prefer to see or play skateboarding. On the contrary, if the author's answer is opposite, it's entirely possible that only a fraction of people like skateboarding , thus, lifting the prohibition cannot enable plaza to restore its former glory. For that matter, perhaps that the former glory of plaza is not because of skateboarding, but due to such absorbing factors as many kind of the flowers in there which is neglected by the author.

In sum, the author's recommendation is not persuasive. To bolster his argument, he must answer the following series questions about the people who are responsible for the vandalism and whether M park and central plaza under the same conditions as well as Can skateboarding bring plaza's former glory?