In the above statement, it is claimed by the author that because of the increase in number of skateboarders, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza have decreased
and consequently decrease in their business (grammatical error... consequent decrease ). The solution provided to this is proscribing the skateboarders. The claim and its solution is rife with many holes.
Firstly,
it has been observed that the amount of litters and vandalism has increased and that can be the one of the major reasons behind the decrease in number of shoppers (sentence structure can be better). Shoppers will be concerned about their
safety and security and cleanliness of the place (better structure possible).
Also it can be the case that, many store owners have shifted to other place due to security reasons and those can be one of the stores that many shoppers must have preferred (why also? this is the first counter-argument you are presenting.. its not adding to any previous case).
Secondly, there can be
any (a in place of any) new shopping spot opened nearby the Central Plaza, which is
offering a good number of options to shop at relatively lower prices (maybe better way to put it).
There is no mention of this kind of situation, so it can be one of the reason for shoppers to sway from Central Plaza to this new place (i would write it in the following way... "It can be a plausible reason which can explain the decrease of shoppers in Central Plaza. However, there is no information provided in the passage to corroborate (to back up) this argument." Keep it straight to the point) . Information regarding preference in shopping need to be determined.
Moreover, there is no relation between the amount of litter, sabotaging
act(s) and the skateboarders. There is no bolstering statistics provided with the claim of dramatic increase in skateboarders and due to that, the decrease in number of shoppers. There is no cogent relation between skateboarders and shoppers. If by any chance skateboarders are banned in Central Plaza, there is no surety for the business to regain its level as earlier.
Lastly, there is no mention of who all are recommending the prohibition of skateboarders, it can be true that only mere number of owners are concerned about skateboarders because of some personal reasons and not the major portion, there should be a proper information regarding how many store owners agree with the recommendation and it constitutes what percentage of total (Good reasoning
).
For the claim to be true and solution to be appropriate, a good survey need to be carried out amongst the shoppers, store owners and other population in the area regarding the decrease in number of shoppers, their preference, what they expect from a store, problems faced if any and other valid points.
Also, the problem of littering and sabotaging is unattended, which can be the one of the reason for decrease in number of shoppers. (i didn't see the point of this last statement with respect to the bigger picture you are trying to paint here)
Verdict
3.5 - 4
The reasoning is pretty good. You have successfully figured out the weaknesses in the argument and pointed out the possible scenarios which may render the argument invalid. However, there are some grammatical errors as i have already highlighted and you have a tendency to write complicated sentences which may undermine the overall coherence of the argument. My advice would be to keep the sentences short, simple and straight to the point. Without the errors I would have definitely given you a 4.5.
I hope this helps!
Updated on: 23 Jul 2015, 07:58 
