Please evaluate my first argument essay.

Prompt: 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.

Answer:
The following argument is seriously flawed for numerous reasons. In essence, the argument is based on the unwarranted conjecture that business in Central Plaza has gone down due to increasing popularity of skateboard users, rendering its main crux, that the precluding to skateboard in the arena would resuscitate their business to its previously high level, invalid.

The argument fails to endow any justification that the falling business is exactly the cause of burgeoning skateboard users in the Central Plaza. For one, the area might have been more convenient and apt for skateboarding, with no viable relation with buying or shopping in the plaza. Admittedly, the plaza might be struggling to provide high quality items and due to which shoppers might have found their new destinations. More significantly, the argument also fails to consider the price. Has it inflated over the past two years? Or maybe they have compromised on their previously seemly customer care and service. Had the argument maintained detailed exegesis on aforementioned conditions? Even then, the argument would have to further expound that, skateboard users are the only cause for their business downfall.

The argument also leaves room for plethora of other unanswered questions. Perhaps the important one is that whether or not skateboard users have resulted in litters and vandalism in and around the plaza. The argument seems weak to present meticulous judgments on the type of people that come around the plaza on daily basis. There is pronounced chance that children’s who come to visit the plaza would have caused litters. In addition, the security system of the plaza might not have been strong enough. It is thus quite possible that notorious teenagers or college students might have encroached upon the plaza boundary and cause deliberate destruction of glasses, flower pots and so on. How can author simply assume that occluding skateboard use in and around the plaza would reduce litters and vandalism when the activity might have been entirely unrelated with them?

All things considered, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that prohibition of skateboard use would result in revamping their business.