The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza. “Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza. “Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza.

  • adastra
    University: Wooster college
    Nationality: china
    October 1, 2021 at 1:29 pm

    The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
    “Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza.”

    Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

    In this argument, the author recommends a prohibition against skateboarding in Central Plaza in order to revitalize the area to its former glory. In order to buttress his/her claim, the author quotes the business owner attributing the decrease of shoppers as well as the increasing amount of litter and vandalism in this region to skateboard users. Plausible as the recommendation may appear, there are a number of questions regarding his/her lines of reasoning that require further inquiry. While prohibiting skateboarding might be conducive to the health of the business in Central Plaza, whether the author’s recommendation is reasonable hinges on the answers to the following questions.

    To begin with, the author acquiesces in the claim made by business owners that the decline is attributable to skateboarding. However, emotional as the owners could be regarding the decrease in their business, skateboarding might be a target they hastily blame without thorough consideration. Moreover, the decline in the number of shoppers could be determined by a variety of factors: unappealing environment, local competition, incline of online shopping, scarce in variety of brands, to name a few. Hence, in order to demonstrate the relationship between skateboarding and the plaza’s decline, the question about the possibility of alternative explanations needs to be evaluated. If alternative explanations can be ruled out or proved to pale in significance in comparison with skateboarding, the author’s argument would be strengthened.

    Furthermore, the author’s argument also suffers from a questionable assumption which hastily ascribes the increase of litter and vandalism to skateboarding. This assumption is potentially problematic because we are not informed with evidence showing such actions are mainly conducted by skateboard users. For example, if it turns out that the increase of litter and vandalism is due to the increase of homeless people in surrounding area, the assumption would become untenable. As a result, the author’s recommendation is rendered much less advisable. On the other hand, any valid proof that the skateboard users tend to throw litter around and damage public renders the author’s recommendation more convincing.

    Granted that the decrease in the business is attributable to skateboarding, what we also need to know is whether a ban on skateboarding is the most effective way to restore the business. Enforcing the prohibition rule can be intractable and leads to tensions between the government and the public. As skateboarding contributes to an atmosphere of fun and relaxation, creating a skateboard park inside the mall for skateboard users to congregate could be a better solution.

    To sum up, although prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza has the potential to restore the business, this is not a conclusion that can be derived from the information given in this argument. Moreover, even if skateboarding causes a decrease in the business, better solution than a simple ban is available. Only after those questions are adequately addressed can we effectively evaluate the author’s recommendation.

    October 4, 2021 at 11:45 am

    In this argument, the author recommends a prohibition against skateboarding in Central Plaza in order to revitalize the area to its former glory. In order to buttress his/her (To support their) claim, the author quotes the (article error) business owner attributing the decrease of shoppers as well as (and) the increasing amount of litter and vandalism in this region (delete) to skateboard users (simplify). Plausible as the recommendation may appear, there are a number of questions regarding his/her (their) lines of (delete) reasoning that require further inquiry. While prohibiting skateboarding might be conducive to the health of the (article error) business in Central Plaza, whether the author’s recommendation is reasonable hinges on the answers to the following questions.

     

    To begin with, the author acquiesces in the claim made by business owners that the decline is attributable to skateboarding. However, emotional as the owners could be regarding the decrease in their business, skateboarding might be a target they hastily blame without thorough consideration. Moreover, the decline in the number of shoppers could be determined by a variety of factors: unappealing environment, local competition, incline of online shopping, scarce in variety of brands, to name a few. Hence, in order to demonstrate the relationship between skateboarding and the plaza’s decline, the question about the possibility of alternative explanations needs to be evaluated. If alternative explanations can be ruled out or proved to pale in significance in comparison with skateboarding, the author’s argument would be strengthened.

     

    Furthermore, the author’s argument also suffers from a questionable assumption which hastily ascribes the increase of litter and vandalism to skateboarding. This assumption is potentially problematic because we are not informed with evidence showing such actions are mainly conducted by skateboard users. For example, if it turns out that the increase of litter and vandalism is due to the increase of homeless people in surrounding area, the assumption would become untenable. As a result, the author’s recommendation is rendered much less advisable. On the other hand, any valid proof that the skateboard users tend to throw litter around and damage public renders the author’s recommendation more convincing.

     

    Granted that the decrease in the business is attributable to skateboarding, what we also need to know is whether a ban on skateboarding is the most effective way to restore the business. Enforcing the prohibition rule can be intractable and leads to tensions between the government and the public. As skateboarding contributes to an atmosphere of fun and relaxation, creating a skateboard park inside the mall for skateboard users to congregate could be a better solution.

     

    To sum up, although prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza has the potential to restore the business, this is not a conclusion that can be derived from the information given in this argument. Moreover, even if skateboarding causes a decrease in the business, better solution than a simple ban is available. Only after those questions are adequately addressed can we effectively evaluate the author’s recommendation.

    October 4, 2021 at 3:24 pm

    Partial Revision (please fix similar errors, revise whole essay, and resubmit)