Hi I am giving GRE in mid of November. Kindly help me by providing feedback for the argument task of analytical writing so that I can practice some more with better writing. Thank you in advance.
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.
----------------------------------
The author in this argument requested the city to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza on the basis that the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has decreased with the increasing popularity of skateboarding. However author did not provide a concrete proof for this argument and many questions need to be answered before making this recommendation.
This argument is a clear reflection of the post hoc fallacy wherein the author stated that the increase in skateboarding in the recent years is the cause for decline of business in Central Plaza. It is not clear whether the skateboarding led to decrease in the number of shoppers or downfall of business in Plaza led to skateboard users occupying the Plaza in large numbers.
Firstly, the author claimed that many store owners think the use of skateboarding has decreased their business. However it is not reliable to go with the assumptions of some store owners. The author need to ask questions from store owners that what is the category of population they see doing skateboarding; are they the customers or some outsiders or the store owners themselves. It is possible that store owners themselves plunged in skateboarding and thus deviating from their business which led to lack of concern for the business and eventually led to low number of shoppers. Additionally the author need to survey the customers about what deterred them from shopping whether it is because of the skateboarding or they do not get the material or items they are looking for in the stores. Ask the customers if they are attracted to a new Plaza or shopping sites or they are not satisfied with the store owners due to their increasing carelessness . A survey for the skateboarders too should be done to ask what brought them to use the Plaza as a place for skateboarding whether is it because they could not find any other empty place to do the activity or they are just doing this to threaten the owners or customers or empty Plaza enticed them for skateboarding.
Secondly the author claimed that there is increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the Plaza. Although the author did not mention the clear source of the litter and vandalism, thus it is advisable to firstly know who are responsible for the cleaning and maintaining the Plaza and why are they not doing their job? Are they finding skateboarding much delightful and thus skipping their jobs or is it because of the skateboarders who carelessly wanders around the Plaza damaging the property. It is also possible that customers drop the litter because of increased carelessness of the management or the store owners. Also survey the customers if they have stopped coming to Plaza because of low care and increased litter and vandalism which makes the Plaza less attractive.
Lastly the author recommended the city to prohibit skateboarding so as to regain the business of the store owners. But if the author can get back to the main reason for this drop in business, this recommendation is wrong to be made here. For instance, the author can recommend the city to provide space or ground for the enthusiastic persons looking for open place to skateboard. But if the store owners themselves indulging in these activities , the author should recommend to prohibit the store owners from indulging in such activities as this is deterring the business of other store owners too. Thirdly the author should recommend to clean and maintain the Plaza on periodic basis so as to maintain the flow of customers. Also if this is because of the low quality and less variety on the store then it is recommended that the store owners pay attention to their store and bring the material which satisfy the customers.
In conclusion , the author professed that the prohibition of the skateboarding in Plaza could return the business back to its position but somehow failed to provide the evidence for this. So the author need to provide the concrete data and decide accordingly to substantiate his argument.
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.
----------------------------------
The author in this argument requested the city to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza on the basis that the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has decreased with the increasing popularity of skateboarding. However author did not provide a concrete proof for this argument and many questions need to be answered before making this recommendation.
This argument is a clear reflection of the post hoc fallacy wherein the author stated that the increase in skateboarding in the recent years is the cause for decline of business in Central Plaza. It is not clear whether the skateboarding led to decrease in the number of shoppers or downfall of business in Plaza led to skateboard users occupying the Plaza in large numbers.
Firstly, the author claimed that many store owners think the use of skateboarding has decreased their business. However it is not reliable to go with the assumptions of some store owners. The author need to ask questions from store owners that what is the category of population they see doing skateboarding; are they the customers or some outsiders or the store owners themselves. It is possible that store owners themselves plunged in skateboarding and thus deviating from their business which led to lack of concern for the business and eventually led to low number of shoppers. Additionally the author need to survey the customers about what deterred them from shopping whether it is because of the skateboarding or they do not get the material or items they are looking for in the stores. Ask the customers if they are attracted to a new Plaza or shopping sites or they are not satisfied with the store owners due to their increasing carelessness . A survey for the skateboarders too should be done to ask what brought them to use the Plaza as a place for skateboarding whether is it because they could not find any other empty place to do the activity or they are just doing this to threaten the owners or customers or empty Plaza enticed them for skateboarding.
Secondly the author claimed that there is increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the Plaza. Although the author did not mention the clear source of the litter and vandalism, thus it is advisable to firstly know who are responsible for the cleaning and maintaining the Plaza and why are they not doing their job? Are they finding skateboarding much delightful and thus skipping their jobs or is it because of the skateboarders who carelessly wanders around the Plaza damaging the property. It is also possible that customers drop the litter because of increased carelessness of the management or the store owners. Also survey the customers if they have stopped coming to Plaza because of low care and increased litter and vandalism which makes the Plaza less attractive.
Lastly the author recommended the city to prohibit skateboarding so as to regain the business of the store owners. But if the author can get back to the main reason for this drop in business, this recommendation is wrong to be made here. For instance, the author can recommend the city to provide space or ground for the enthusiastic persons looking for open place to skateboard. But if the store owners themselves indulging in these activities , the author should recommend to prohibit the store owners from indulging in such activities as this is deterring the business of other store owners too. Thirdly the author should recommend to clean and maintain the Plaza on periodic basis so as to maintain the flow of customers. Also if this is because of the low quality and less variety on the store then it is recommended that the store owners pay attention to their store and bring the material which satisfy the customers.
In conclusion , the author professed that the prohibition of the skateboarding in Plaza could return the business back to its position but somehow failed to provide the evidence for this. So the author need to provide the concrete data and decide accordingly to substantiate his argument.
