- UID
- 809938
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-9-20
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
In this argument, the author comes to a conclusion that the city should prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. To justify the claim, the author points out that the number of shoppers in central plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. The author also cites that the amount of litter and vandalism in Central plaza was increasing. The conclusion presented above is relatively sound at first glance. But close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.
First and foremost, the store owners unfairly assume that it is the presence of skateboards that result in the decrease in their business. However, the author fails to provide a more defined correlation. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the decrease. Perhaps the price of the things in Central Plaza is deeply high or the discount is unsatisfied for the consumers. Again, the location is also important. Locating in a state with less low-income people and without other shopping malls counter is beneficial. Besides, the author fails to consider the influence of local economic and the attitude of the local consumers. Perhaps, the lapse of local economic leads to the aversion of going shopping. In short, without more information about the circumstances of the stores and consumers in central plaza, it is impossible to determine that the skateboards instead of other intrinsic factors that play an important part in determining the business of the stores.
In addition, the author mentions that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza because of skateboards. Prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza can exactly solve this problem to some extent, but some side effects also exist, such as, less people coming to the plaza and so forth. Instead, measures can be taken to increase citizen’s environmental awareness by the name of the store owners. They can make lists on the wall warning citizens to keep our environment clean or lay several rubbish bins in the plaza. In this way, they can not only solve this problem, but also make a good impression on the citizens. Each scenario above would decrease the amount of litter and vandalism in Central plaza.
Finally, the author comes to a conclusion that if skateboarding is prohibited here, the business in Ventral Plaza will return to its previously high levels. But the author does not define the extent of the “high level”, for example, the lowest bound of the gross. Maybe over the last two years, the economic here was in a decline, with less money fluctuating in the marketplace. Although the amount of money has decreased, the central plaza may still be out-profiting his competitors. In fact, his relative sales are still in high level. Indeed, if the executive department take more other possibilities into account, the verdict will be more convincing.
To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. Before making any decision, they have to make a overall survey about the profitability of the store and the popularity of skateboarding over the past two years exactly and taking every factors into consideration, such as the degree of satisfaction of the citizens. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-11-3 23:44:06
收藏
收藏
