At first sight of the recommendation, it is entirely plausible to blame the skateboarding for the problems happened in the Central Plaza. However, some claims in this letter rely on unsound assumptions. In order to establish the recommendation better, there should be answers to some questions.

First of all, the letter says that the decrease of the shopper and the increase of the skateboarding happened at the same time so that it leads us to blame the skateboarder. But is the declining number of shoppers really related to the popularity of skateboarding? Maybe there is a new shopping mall in the city, and as all we know, human beings always love the new things which can bring the freshness. Besides, the new shopping mall might have better facilities and cheaper price goods, which can offer customers a better shopping experience. So we can assume that the new shopping mall attracts the customers. Thus, the number of Central Plaza shoppers have decreased for two years. We need the clear connection between the skateboarding and shoppers.

Second, the recommendation also claims that the increase of litter and vandalism resulted from skateboarding. Again, the assumption relies on defective evidence. The increase of the litter and vandalism might not relate to the skateboarding due to unreliable evidence. Maybe the litter and vandalism were made by the homeless and workless people. In the eyes of many of us, those people are more likely to commit crimes. Besides, the skateboarding needs a good and clean place because the wheels of the skateboard will not smoothly slide on bumpy ground. We need factual information about the correlation of the litter and vandalism and its cause.

Finally, allowing the skateboarding does have relation with the decreasing number of the shoppers and the litter and vandalism, can the prohibition of the skateboarding bring the Central Plaza business to its previous levels? Maybe the Central Plaza is disreputable for those problems stated above, and the reputation will not recover in a short time because the bad thing always runs faster than the good thing dose. Even though the shoppers are back to its previous levels, it cannot promise that the business can return to its previously high levels. We need a firm ground to establish the claim.

In short, unless we have further information about the Central Plaza and firm evidence which would support the recommendation convincingly, there will not be a persuasive proposal. We need the information discussed and the answers to the question asked above to better evaluate the recommendation.

At first glance at the recommendation, it seems right that the so-called Palean baskets were not uniquely Palean due to the discovery of the baskets in Lithos. However, the recommendation relies on a series of logical flaws, which make it unconvincing. Before drawing the conclusion, more credible and reliable information should be offered.

The recommendation assumes that the Brim River existed in the ancient Palea. However, there is no obvious evidence to support this assumption. The geology may have changed with the time passing by.  The Brim River may not exist in the ancient area, so there was no need for boats for those Palean locals to transport the Palean baskets to the Lithos. Allowing the Brim River existed, the Brim River might not be as deep and broad as the recent Brim River. The individuals might get across the river by foot. Thus, the so-called Palean baskets could get carried by the locals. It means that we need more ancient geology information about Lithos and Palea.

Another unwarranted assumption is that no Palean boats have been found. Allowing the Brim River is as deep and broad as the recent one, still, it could be an unsound assumption, because the boat might be made of woods. As all we know, the woods could not remain forever, and the woods could get eroded. Besides, the boat which consisted of woods might get flushed and squash into thousand pieces, which is a problem for archeologists to find the boats. Thus, there might be no Palean boats having been found. We need further research on the existence of the Palean boats so that we could have a more prudent conclusion.

There is another question needs to be answered. Is the Lithos and Palea geologically separated as today? Perhaps, the Lithos and Palea were the same side of the village, but different places and there were a lot of commercial activities between them.  Thus the so-called Palean basket could be brought to the Lithos. It is another reason for finding no boats. Unless we have more geological information about the ancient area, we may not have a more prudent conclusion about the Palean basket.

In short, the recommendation is not well supported by those claims. To establish the recommendation more better, more question need to be answered, and more reliable information should be given. We would not have a prudent conclusion without further evidences provided.