argument一篇，大家看看吧，谢了。。。。 - ChaseDream

"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in CentralPlaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter andvandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In thepast two years, however, there has only been a small increase in the number ofvisitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic.Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problemwith litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its formerglory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboardingin the plaza."

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

The owner of the skate shop argues that the city should lift itsprohibition on skateboarding in the plaza and then Central Plaza's former glorycan be restored. To claim this, the author provides some evidence such as thecomparison between Central Plaza and Monroe Park etc., but this seeminglyconvincing argument is weak if readers scrutinize the reasoning process, theycan find several questions needed to be answered by the author.

In the first place, the owner avers that in the past two years, there hasonly been a slight increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza. Readersmay think it weird that the small increase in number may be turned out huge inthe percentage. It's probable that visitors to Central Plaza were quite few atthe beginning, so a double of visitor still indicates a slight increase innumber. Even if the percentage of increasing people is small, there is alsochance that there were still some skateboarders playing kickflip or ollie inthe plaza secretly so that police didn't catch them. To make his argument morepersuasive, the author has to provide more information about the fact happenedin Central Plaza and answer some questions to exclude all the possibilitiesthat will weaken the argument.

By almost the same token, the author also refers the comparison betweenthis plaza and Monroe Park. He says that the litter or the vandalism problemsare not that annoying in Monroe Park where no skateboarding prohibition is set.It seems a good reason, but the author omits the surroundings of the twoplaces. For instance, there is highly probable that skateboarders in the parkalways litter in somewhere that is not often noticed by people or they cannotfind good place to vandalize. When it comes to the plaza, many things likedoors or fountains are attractive to vandals. In this means, the prohibition ofskateboards is a advisable action. To prevent these possibilities, the authorhas to say something more about the situation where the plaza and the park arein, otherwise the argument can be easily toppled.

In addition, the owner of the skate shop also claims that if theseproblems are solved, the former glory of the plaza can be definitely restored.Readers will ask that whether it is the litter-things or vandalism that destroyedthe glory of Central Plaza. If skateboards are allowed in the plaza again, thesituation may not be improved or it may become even worse. Some unskillfulskateboarders may always run into pedestrians and bikes, which will make a messin the plaza, and therefore, people would not hang out in the plaza any more.All of those are quite likely to happen and a promise of the restoring glorycan be turned out false. So the author has to show us more convincing evidenceand strengthen the connection between the lifting of prohibition and therestoration of the former glory.

To sum up, this argument seems good. However, many questions can bebrought to account. The author has to detail his argument and improve thereasoning process so that his suggestions can be taken into account and evenadopted.