Analysis of Argument (AoA) – Topic 3

3. The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.

“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.

 (Topic 3, AoA, Official Guide, Revised GRE)

Response:  

  1. The argument has no explanation to believe that there exists any inverse relationship between the number of skateboarders and that of the shoppers at Central Plaza.
  2. The argument bases itself on the assumption that the skateboarders are directly responsible for the “dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza”.
  3. There us a possibility that due to the increased number of skateboarders (thinking it to signify popularity), the shop owners in the plaza might have increased the prices which led to the decrease in the footfalls in the plaza.
  4. It is quite possible that it is not the skateboarders but some local miscreants which are responsible for the litter and vandalism. So a proper investigation should be made into the matter before risking to be prejudiced against the skateboarders.
  5. The reduced popularity of the plaza can also pertain to a construction of a more popular/ enticing shopping plaza in the vicinity due to which the shoppers now do not want to shop at this one.
  6. There is no evidence to prove that Central Plaza has been upgraded in terms of infrastructure/ products available in the recent times. The probable obsolescence  of the facilities/ products might also be surmounting to decreased numbers of shoppers in the Plaza.
  7. Maybe the above reasons are accounting heavily for the low number of shoppers at the plaza, and improving upon them might result in better results.
  8. Prohibiting the skateboarders in a situation where the plaza already has a low number of shoppers, may decrease the indirect advertising of the products/ up-gradation being brought there and end up reducing the popularity even more.

Go To –

    Our responses in the posts on  AoAs  are meant to only find the flaws in the argument. They do NOT show the  sample writing.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Analyze an Argument and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s