"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.
The argument is jumbling up various events, assuming unsoundly about their reasons and making up a blunt claim. Several question can be asked from this particular argument. It could be shown that this argument fails to answer them, making it very unconvincing and its recommendation, untenable.
To begin with, the reduction in the number of shoppers can have several reasons. If someone tries to find the answer to the question of that reduction from this argument, he would fail. Because the author doesn't give any. May be another plaza has been established with more amenities, may be peoples financial condition has been worsened. If these are the case, then the juxtaposition of shopper diminution and skateboarding proliferation and thus the claimed entailment of their relation would gain dubious authenticity.
The argument stated that 'many plaza owners', believe that skateboarding is ruining their business. But how many? What percentage of owners are claiming that? If the percentage is not sufficiently large to represent the owners, then their believe would not have much value. The author needs to be able to give clear answer to that question, else it would attenuate the validity of his conclusion.
The dramatic rise in the amount of litter and vandalism, in the views of the author, is another reason for the decrease in business. The question here is, what are the reasons for the increment of vandalism and litter? It can be the case that the economic condition in that reason has worsened, or people are loosing respect to the law and order, leading to that increased vandalism. Then the authors assumption of the relation between increased vandalism and waning of business in Central Plaza. Which would lead to the weakening of authors recommendation.
If the city council really wants to boom business in Central Plaza, they should ask the questions described above themselves. Else, this ill-founded argument and its suspicious recommendation would not be propitious for Central Plaza business.
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.
The argument is jumbling up various events, assuming unsoundly about their reasons and making up a blunt claim. Several question can be asked from this particular argument. It could be shown that this argument fails to answer them, making it very unconvincing and its recommendation, untenable.
To begin with, the reduction in the number of shoppers can have several reasons. If someone tries to find the answer to the question of that reduction from this argument, he would fail. Because the author doesn't give any. May be another plaza has been established with more amenities, may be peoples financial condition has been worsened. If these are the case, then the juxtaposition of shopper diminution and skateboarding proliferation and thus the claimed entailment of their relation would gain dubious authenticity.
The argument stated that 'many plaza owners', believe that skateboarding is ruining their business. But how many? What percentage of owners are claiming that? If the percentage is not sufficiently large to represent the owners, then their believe would not have much value. The author needs to be able to give clear answer to that question, else it would attenuate the validity of his conclusion.
The dramatic rise in the amount of litter and vandalism, in the views of the author, is another reason for the decrease in business. The question here is, what are the reasons for the increment of vandalism and litter? It can be the case that the economic condition in that reason has worsened, or people are loosing respect to the law and order, leading to that increased vandalism. Then the authors assumption of the relation between increased vandalism and waning of business in Central Plaza. Which would lead to the weakening of authors recommendation.
If the city council really wants to boom business in Central Plaza, they should ask the questions described above themselves. Else, this ill-founded argument and its suspicious recommendation would not be propitious for Central Plaza business.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন