While this argument seems convincing at first glance, there are critical flaws that raise doubt about the conclusion. The writer uses an illogical line of reasoning in order to achieve a goal, uttered in their recommendation, which is the complete banning of the skateboarding activity in Central Plaza. The next paragraphs are to refute the writer’s recommendation by asking several unanswered questions in the paragraph.
Firstly, the writer states that in the last two years the number of shoppers decreased, while the popularity of skateboarding increased in Central Plaza. Such statement lacks specification, as it never provides the accurate number of shoppers before and after the assumed decrease of their numbers. In addition, the statement never …show more content…
Here, the writer attempts to place the blame for two unfortunate results on the skateboard users, as being the cause of such effects. Thus, the argument relies upon the assumption that the increase in skateboard users causes the decrease in the shoppers’ number as well as the increase of litter in vandalism, but there is no evidence to prove the causality. This is a classic case of logical fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, did the writer consider that the reason of the decreased number of shoppers was the fact that there was an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism? Accordingly, they might be the reason for the slow business in Central Plaza, and not the skateboard users. Therefore, the causal fallacy in this line of reasoning is apparent, as the writer’s argument results in confusion in the cause-effect …show more content…
Suggesting that the city should entirely prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza is a confined solution to the problem. In addition, it relies on the aforementioned fallacious premises and assumptions, as the writer assumes that shoppers have stopped pouring into Central Plaza stores because they are uncomfortable with the increase number of skateboard users. Therefore, the reasoning relies upon the assumption that no alternative means of the prohibition of skateboarding in the plaza is available. However, without providing solid evidence to substantiate this claim, the assumption is unwarranted. For example, why has not the writer provided a recommendation that the city should solve the problem of litter and vandalism, instead of restricting all choice to prohibiting
Firstly, the writer states that in the last two years the number of shoppers decreased, while the popularity of skateboarding increased in Central Plaza. Such statement lacks specification, as it never provides the accurate number of shoppers before and after the assumed decrease of their numbers. In addition, the statement never …show more content…
Here, the writer attempts to place the blame for two unfortunate results on the skateboard users, as being the cause of such effects. Thus, the argument relies upon the assumption that the increase in skateboard users causes the decrease in the shoppers’ number as well as the increase of litter in vandalism, but there is no evidence to prove the causality. This is a classic case of logical fallacy. Too many other factors may affect the reasoning as well. For example, did the writer consider that the reason of the decreased number of shoppers was the fact that there was an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism? Accordingly, they might be the reason for the slow business in Central Plaza, and not the skateboard users. Therefore, the causal fallacy in this line of reasoning is apparent, as the writer’s argument results in confusion in the cause-effect …show more content…
Suggesting that the city should entirely prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza is a confined solution to the problem. In addition, it relies on the aforementioned fallacious premises and assumptions, as the writer assumes that shoppers have stopped pouring into Central Plaza stores because they are uncomfortable with the increase number of skateboard users. Therefore, the reasoning relies upon the assumption that no alternative means of the prohibition of skateboarding in the plaza is available. However, without providing solid evidence to substantiate this claim, the assumption is unwarranted. For example, why has not the writer provided a recommendation that the city should solve the problem of litter and vandalism, instead of restricting all choice to prohibiting