Hi Experts,
I am back after a long haul. Could you please review my essay? Thank you so much !
"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."
The argument in question states that dramatic increase in the popularity of skateboarding has rendered a reduction in the businesses housed by the Central plaza. It also accuses squalor that cropped up because of the litter and vandalism in the plaza as another reason behind the central plaza's plummeting business. In sum, the argument claims that by ruling out the loitering of skateboarders from the central plaza will help to significantly regain the plaza's businesses. But the argument is based on unsupported assumptions and unrelated facts that leaves it essentially flawed in many ways.
First, the assumption that the argument makes that the reduction in central plaza's shoppers is a direct effect of the increasing popularity of skateboarding activity, is vague. That the shoppers believe that the reduction is due to burgeoning skateboarder users is not supported by any relevant evidence. The shopkeepers who expressed their views may not necessarily be the representative of all the shop owners in the central plaza. The argument does not even provide any information about the source that may have collected the data, that is, if an independent survey was conducted, one cannot simply rely on it without any substantial proof such as, the percentage or number of shopkeepers affected or expressing their concern.
Second, the argument also fails to incorporate explicit information about the skateboarders, that is, whether the shoppers who visit the central plaza are the ones involved in skateboarding activity or the skateboarders are not necessarily the shoppers. It is not unusual that the adult shoppers who visit the central plaza, in fact, can shop seamlessly while they leave their kids to enjoy the skateboarding activity. On the contrary, such a reason may prove skateboarding beneficial to the shop owners. Thus the argument should include such apposite information.
Third, the litter and vandalism that has been dramatically increasing in the central plaza may be due to the shoppers, shop owners, random loiters spreading the same and may not necessarily be because of the skateboarders. The argument fails to clearly prove its accusation in a way that it has not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim.
In addition to the above, the reduction of the businesses in the central plaza may have been due to various other reasons, such as - a new shopping plaza with much better amenities and wider variety of shops has opened very close to the central plaza, thus drawing a lion's share of central plaza's usual shoppers. Another reason may be the best and the highest selling shops in the central plaza have already closed down resulting in the reduction of the plaza's businesses.
In sum, the argument suffers from the paucity of substantial information necessary support its claims and, hence, it fails to persuade the readers. To significantly make an impact, the argument has to incorporate the aforementioned points and provide factual evidence to support its claim.
I am back after a long haul. Could you please review my essay? Thank you so much !
"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."
The argument in question states that dramatic increase in the popularity of skateboarding has rendered a reduction in the businesses housed by the Central plaza. It also accuses squalor that cropped up because of the litter and vandalism in the plaza as another reason behind the central plaza's plummeting business. In sum, the argument claims that by ruling out the loitering of skateboarders from the central plaza will help to significantly regain the plaza's businesses. But the argument is based on unsupported assumptions and unrelated facts that leaves it essentially flawed in many ways.
First, the assumption that the argument makes that the reduction in central plaza's shoppers is a direct effect of the increasing popularity of skateboarding activity, is vague. That the shoppers believe that the reduction is due to burgeoning skateboarder users is not supported by any relevant evidence. The shopkeepers who expressed their views may not necessarily be the representative of all the shop owners in the central plaza. The argument does not even provide any information about the source that may have collected the data, that is, if an independent survey was conducted, one cannot simply rely on it without any substantial proof such as, the percentage or number of shopkeepers affected or expressing their concern.
Second, the argument also fails to incorporate explicit information about the skateboarders, that is, whether the shoppers who visit the central plaza are the ones involved in skateboarding activity or the skateboarders are not necessarily the shoppers. It is not unusual that the adult shoppers who visit the central plaza, in fact, can shop seamlessly while they leave their kids to enjoy the skateboarding activity. On the contrary, such a reason may prove skateboarding beneficial to the shop owners. Thus the argument should include such apposite information.
Third, the litter and vandalism that has been dramatically increasing in the central plaza may be due to the shoppers, shop owners, random loiters spreading the same and may not necessarily be because of the skateboarders. The argument fails to clearly prove its accusation in a way that it has not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim.
In addition to the above, the reduction of the businesses in the central plaza may have been due to various other reasons, such as - a new shopping plaza with much better amenities and wider variety of shops has opened very close to the central plaza, thus drawing a lion's share of central plaza's usual shoppers. Another reason may be the best and the highest selling shops in the central plaza have already closed down resulting in the reduction of the plaza's businesses.
In sum, the argument suffers from the paucity of substantial information necessary support its claims and, hence, it fails to persuade the readers. To significantly make an impact, the argument has to incorporate the aforementioned points and provide factual evidence to support its claim.
