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.
According to the author the business in the Central Plaza has decreased over the last two years because the number of skateboard users has increased. On the basis of this assumption the author has suggested to prohibit skateboarding in the Plaza so as to increase the sales. This recommendation is faulty; to amend on this recommendation many questions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author should answer how the popularity of skateboarding in the Plaza reduced sales by strong evidence. Are the skateboarders a hindrance for the shoppers who com to the Plaza? Is their sport a nuisance for other people? If this is true it will support the recommendation to prohibit the practice of skateboarding. Whereas, a possibility is that the skateboarding has gained popularity among the owners of the shops of the Plaza thus spending more time enjoying the sport than on their business, which has lead to a negligence in their business. It should be clear on who are the group of people practicing skateboarding in the Plaza. Moreover why is skateboarding gaining popularity in the Central Plaza only? The author has presumably not found out the causes of why Plaza is favouring the skateboarders. If there are any unique reasons that make Plaza attractive to the skateboarders and are not available at other parts of the city, can be solved by providing facilities in other parts of the city. The authors claim that skateboarding is a result of low sales in the Central Plaza but his claim cannot be given credulity unless he answers the above questions and supports them with significant data.
The second claim is that there is dramatic rise in litter and vandalism in the Central Plaza. Has this change in the environment caused of decrease sales in the Plaza rather than the sport? Or can it be that the popularity of the sport has played significant role in increasing litter and vandalism in Central Plaza. Shoppers will not want to spend time in the Plaza due to increase dirt and changing social behaviour. For increasing sale to prior statistics, the reason of decrease in shoppers should be analysed. The authors assumption that there is a causative relation between skateboarders and environment of the plaza should be analysed. If the litter and vandalism is proved to be a result of the sport, it would strongly support the recommendation.
To amend on the recommendation the author has to answer these questions which will provide enough evidence to support the suggestion of prohibiting skateboarding in the Plaza. In turn it would increase the sales in the Plaza returning to previous high levels.
In the intro, you should give an overview of what you're going to talk about or else your reader will be clueless.
Are the skateboarders a hindrance for the shoppers who come to the Plaza?
If there are any unique reasons that make Plaza attractive to the skateboarders and are not available at other parts of the city, can be solved by providing facilities in other parts of the city. reword. it's hard to follow
The authors claim that skateboarding is a result of low sales in the Central Plaza but his claim... is it 1 or more author?
Has this change in the environment caused of decreased sales in the Plaza rather than the sport? Or can it be that the popularity of the sport has played a significant role in increasing litter and vandalism in Central Plaza.?
The author' s assumption that there is a causative relation between skateboarders and the environment of the plaza should be analysed. If the littering and vandalism is provedare proven to be a result of the sport, it would strongly support the recommendation.
In turn it would increase the sales in the Plaza, returning it to its previous high levels.
please check for content, grammatical errors and sentence formations. Thank you !
The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend.
"Of the two leading real estate firms in our town-Adams Realty and Fitch Realty-Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago I listed my home with Fitch, and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams Realty."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author states that of the two leading real estate firms, Adams Realty is superior to Fitch Realty although this is clearly based on assumptions and the author's view is fallacious. Later, the author states that if you want to sell your home quickly, you should approach Adams realty on the basis of his earlier assumptions.
The author considers Adams Realty a superior firm on the basis of the number of real estate agents and the home sales compared to Fitch's firm. Adams firm consists of 40 real estate agents while Fitch's have 25 who work part time. Whether the former has part-time or full time agents was not known, and assumed to be fulltime. Again, Adam's had an average home sale of $168,000 which was comparatively higher to $144,000 of Fitch's firm. But the number of homes sold by each firm was unknown. Moreover, it is possible that Adam's firm sold less number of houses in higher rates in contrast to Fitch's firm which might have sold more number of houses for lower rates. The location, area of the house and the quotation are other factors which were not considered before stating which firm is superior. Thus, the author's argument is flawed as they are based on the above assumptions.
The last assumption made by the author is that the homes listed with Adam's firm were sold faster. Furthermore, he explains that he had listed one of his homes ten years ago with Fitch's firm which took more than four months to sell whereas, last year he sold a home in a month which was listed with Adam's firm. Certainly, the author overlooked the real estate market, a major factor in sales of homes. Demand of the second home due to its location, area and price could be higher comparing to the first home, all of which was not taken into account. Before stating that Adam's firm is more capable of selling homes faster and on good rates these important factors should be looked into.
These three assumptions by the author are not true and the argument that Adam's firm is superior is false. Such statements should be based on concrete data and not on such unwarranted assumptions. If these assumptions are corrected then the author's argument will not be viable.
