The Good:

Fairly robust in structure.
Lucid arguments and extensive test cases have been examined.

Could have been better

The essay is a little short and the paragraphs could use a little more body.

color=#ff0000]Lines that are not clear[/color]



The recommendation to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza in order to increase the number of shoppers in it is not supported by valid reasons to make it sound reasonable enough.

It has not been clearly stated why the number of shoppers reduced. The shoppers might have reduced because of production of inferior quality of materials. It might also have reduced because of declination of varieties in clothes/footwear/apparels or any other section. There can be a possibility that it has been focusing more on improving its skateboarding while paying less attention to other things.

Fashion and style is something that doesn’t remain same. It keeps on changing every now and then. To cater to the changes in fashion style and statement, shopkeepers should have the latest stock available with them to satisfy the demands of the customers. If it cannot fit with the latest trends, it may become obsolete in the long run.

The increasing popularity of skateboarding can also be attributed to its monotony.[/color] Whereas, the decreasing amount of shoppers in the Central Plaza can be attributed to various shops opened in the vicinity in the recent years. The shoppers might be visiting to other shops mainly because of affordable prices, greater variety, or approachable location.

Coming on to the litter and vandalism thing, one cannot claim that it has been increasing because of more amounts of skateboarding activities. If proper care, maintenance and adherence to rules are laid down, these will reduce to a great extent.

Hence, to increase the business in Central Plaza, one needs to look into other diverse and logical factors, stated above, in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.





Increase in popularity of skateboarding over the past two years has adversely affected business in Central Plaza-states the topic. Assuming it to be true, to judge the relevance of the above proposition, we must also take into account the role and extent of various other possibilities that may contribute to the fall in business in addition to skateboarding. Newer and bigger malls and plazas may have sprung up, offering people broader options to shop from as well as providing wider variety of goods, better discounts and yearly sales. Nevertheless, a drop in quality of goods and services provided by the stores in the Plaza may also have shunned people, causing the owners to lose business and forcing them to close down.

The topic directly blames the skateboarders for the decline in business, but fails to provide a link between the two. How can skateboarding, being an activity of sheer personal entertainment, evolve into a source of nuisance and chaos? It is here that the general skaters must be differentiated from the vandals. Although skateboarding inside malls may well lead to people tripping against them and falling over, vandals, unlike general skaters, create chaos out of sheer vindictive pleasures to disrupt normal processes of business; and thus every skateboarder may not be classified as vandals. Isolated cases of accidents between the shoppers and the skaters may have resulted in customer complaints against them, which the Plaza owners may have mistakenly generalized against all skaters.

Thirdly, an inevitable reduction in the number of shoppers is well expected if a Plaza is not maintained clean and safe- increase in amount of litter decreases the hygiene and deteriorates the ambience, portraying a lack of maintenance. The proposition wrongly assumes that the act of littering was mainly by the skateboarders, overlooking the obvious that even shop owners and casual customers can contribute to the littering unconsciously.

All these reasons might have cumulated over the years and had made people opt for better and safer shopping locations than the Central Plaza. Restoring business to its previously high levels would require an analysis of new shopping tastes of the people, attracting customers with colorful discounts and sales, developing their infrastructures, maintaining a healthy atmosphere and wooing more investors. Business profits and customer footfalls in other plazas too must be looked into, in order to co-relate whether popularity of skateboarding has indeed reduced business. Nevertheless, skateboarders too can form a part of the consumers in the plaza. Eradicating them from the premises may decrease sales even further. Thus, it would be wiser on part of the plaza owners to keep a separate section for the skaters as well as tightening security to prevent vandalism.

Business always has its ups and downs. However, a steady fall in business is a result of certain major parameters working in dark for an extended period which demand immediate action. Developments alone would not help and Central Plaza must promote their business vehemently, be more under-promising and over-delivering, and reach out to the masses through advertisements and various non-profit cultural programs that will attract the people, indirectly strengthening the economy.




While it may be true that the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been decreasing since last two years, this author's argument does not make cogent case for prohibiting skateboarding would resume the number of shoppers at Central Plaza. According to the author, ban on skateboarding would increase the sales at central plaza. While the correlations seem to be somewhat logical and probable, there also could be hidden factors that contribute to the decreased number of shoppers.

The author's first mistake is to assume that he/she knows why the number of shopper is decrease. She claims that the popularity of skateboarding amongst the shopper is the reason why shoppers are less attracted towards stores. This is the classical case of confusing correlation with causation. While people are more inclined towards the skateboarding, it does not follow that it is responsible for decreased sales. It may be because of insufficient or devoid stock for consumer or may be because the Central Plaza lack latest facilities offered by other stores. Perhaps they are inclined towards the skateboarding is entirely different. Skateboarding is all about people's interest in recreational activity. Skateboarding may also be popular because of its concern with body fitness.

The author also claims that dramatic increase in skateboarding has tremendously increased litter and vandalism and reason why the sales have been decreased which is similarly unsubstantiated. The thought that vandalism and litter has decreased the number of shopper, it must also decrease the skateboarding. If the atmosphere is the cause of decrease the popularity of Plaza it must have same effect on the popularity of skateboarding. In this case the author’s assumption should be on survey based so that the author would get to know the foremost existing reason.
Based on assumptions, the author makes bold proposal that to return the previous sales statistics, the skateboarding should be banned. Though this proposal is intend to maintain the positive attribute that to resume the popularity of plaza, it may be fail to achieve the goal because the skateboarding may not be the reason. Despite it is possible that other reason mentioned above could be the cause.

Despite the flaws in this author’s argument, he/she may be correct why the number of shoppers has been decreased. He could strengthen his argument by documenting its most important premises with data. For example, he provided that the decrease in number of shoppers is because of skateboarding, litter and vandalism. Yet, without any supporting details such as survey. If the survey supports the claim, his argument would be far more persuasive. Were this the case his argument might be justified.



This argument is about the number of shoppers in Central plaza decreasing over the past 2 years and it is stated that the possible chances of this may be due to increased popularity of skateboarding in the plaza. Also the store owners have opined to prohibit skateboarding in order to increase the number of shoppers in tha plaza. Well for this proposal to come into effect, it is necessary to have valid reasons and conclusions that might lay the fact that skateboarding is the culprit for decreased number of shoppers in the plaza.

The argument fails to provide the details about the people who are using the plaza for shopping and for skateboarding. It is possible that the shoppers may not be interested in skateboarding and in such cases the plaza remains unaffected from the shopping perspective. Also,it is not necessary that people who visit the plaza for skateboarding be recent visitors of the plaza. A survey or a study about these details would have helped in deducing the above.

Another point of concern is, before proposing for prohibition of skateboarding, the store owners must try to evaluate the quality of the materials being sold in their respective stores. It is very unlikely for the people to continue to visit a store if it has lost its genuineness and the quality. Hence, by prohibiting skateboarding, the plaza might invite more problems and may lose its business completely. Additionally, the argument should have specified if all the store owners are having concerns about their business or this issue exists in selective stores only. Hence the argument cannot be generalized.

Moving ahead, there is a complaint that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism. This might be due to the other visitors of the plaza and not just due to introduction of skateboarding. It is the responsibility of the plaza as well to closely monitor such issues and appoint appropriate staff to advice people to maintain cleanliness. Also, the claim is of just two years. We are not sure if skateboarding has been introduced recently in the plaza or was it existing two years ago as well. If it has been introduced recently then it is very likely to have high popularity as it is the tendency of people to try out every new thing that's in the market. Hence it cannot be concluded that skateboarding will continue to have similar popularity after a period of time.

Hence, by following the above approach and providing the appropriate details might help in regaining the high level business of the plaza.



Prohibiting skateboarding cause to returning business to its previously high level is very simple view. The author failed to render strong evidence for the argument and prove that why there is a direct relation among increasing the number of skateboard users and decreasing the business of store owners in central Plaza. Moreover, the author could not convince the readers why the amount of litter and vandalism has upward trend throughout the Palza. In addition, the author’s prediction about returning the business to its previously level does not have any supporting evidence to persuasive the readers.

Decreasing the number of shoppers in central Plaza may have several reasons that the author should take into account and then make relation between this decreasing with the popularity of skateboarding. It is more likely that the most proportion of shoppers had economical problems due to inflation and could not continue their trade. Maybe, people who live around central plaza do not have enough budgets to spend more money on purchasing from the stores in central plaza. The author could consider different measures which had direct effect on decreasing business at this area.

Furthermore, the author brings a weak evidence to prove his argument while the belief of store owners cannot convince the readers significantly because they did not have enough information about other factors that might had profound influence on their sales. The writer could use stronger evidence and persuade the readers by certain statistics charts and could use the survey method and gather data from store owners about their observations. Increasing the number of skateboard users may have several reasons and do not have any effect on decreasing the business. Also, increasing the percentage of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza has several main reasons that should be taken into consideration that lacking of police station is one of them. The writer could support his argument with decent evidence and render strong reasons and clarify why there are correlation between increasing the rate of crimes and the number of skateboarding users.

The author also failed to illustrate an appropriate conclusion because of two basic reasons. Firstly, generalizing based on weak evidence and secondly prediction in a wrong way without using persuasive evidence to convince the readers. The author could show strong data and prove why prohibiting the skateboarding users lead to increasing the business in central Plaza. It is less likely that having a down ward trend for business has only one weak reason like increasing the number of skateboarding in this area. Prediction a trend needs analyzing the certain important measures that the author does not pay attention to them at all.

In conclusion, the argument has several basic weak points that cannot be overlooked easily and the conclusion is not enough strong to convince the readers. The author does not use decent evidence to support his argument and does not take certain importance factors into account when wants to make a direct relation among raising the number of skateboarding users and soaring the rate of crimes in Plaza. While the author could prove his claim with using certain methods and strong evidence and persuade the reader with rendering statistic data.