argument 3 第一次习作，求狠拍~

jxyzxxy

3. 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. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.






In the argument, the author recommends that the city should forbidden skateboarding in Central Plaza. To substantiate that the suggestion is essential, the shop owner provide evidences like the decrease of shoppers is caused by the increase of skateboarding. Moreover, he also blamed the more litter and vandalism to the skateboarding. He believes that through this measure, the Central Plaza will return to it's previous time. But deep analyzing into the seemingly valid assertion reveals that it rests on some unwarranted assumptions and false ratiocinations, making the conclusion suspect.



First of all, the owner makes the conclusion that the huge unhappy change like the reducing shoppers, more litter and violate was caused by the increasing skateboarding merely because these things happened together. The author fails to rule any other possible explanations for the bad changes, like the decrease of shoppers was caused by the bad economy, or the vandalism and litter were happened because of the huge immigration into the local community from some barbaric place. To support the assumption that all the terrible situations which bothered the owner of Central Plaza were caused by the skateboarding, the owner should further disconfirm these alternative possibilities.



In the second place, even we admit that the skateboarding really caused all the bad things which former mentioned, the owner cannot guarantee that the forbidding method will work out and makes the business return to it's previous time. It's common sense that as time changes, bad habits are never ease to be changed into will-ordered ones. Perhaps since the young are so used to skateboarding, they will not change even there is prohibition. To bolster the conclusion,the author has to evaluate the efficiency of his recommendation .Whether it will work well as he thought?



Finally, if the measure works well in developing the central Plaza's business, is it the best choice to solve this issue? For instance, lower the goods' prize, locate more litter basket and hire more people to monitor the shoppers' behavior will surely solve the current problems.What's more,will the action brings other side-effects to counteract the efficiency,like annoy the young who are willing to board skate in the shop, leading less shoppers to Central Plaza.?To convince me to take the proposal,the author should testify the optimality and the side-effects' influence as former mentioned.



To sum up, the conclusion about the prohibition and it's efficiency is not so sound as the owner thought. For supporting it, the author should answer the cause relationship between the bad behaviors and increasing skateboarding. Moreover, he should evaluate the efficiency of the method, whether it's the best choice and rule out the serious side-effects.

jxyzxxy

多复制了一遍，菜鸟摸索中，请谅解！！

竹林中人

感觉第二点写的不太好吧，可以想下，换个角度写