GRE Argument Essay 66

The following appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper.

“In order to attract visitors to Central Plaza downtown and to return the plaza to its former glory, the city should prohibit skateboarding there and instead allow skateboarders to use an area in Monroe Park. At Central Plaza, skateboard users are about the only people one sees now, and litter and defaced property have made the plaza unattractive. In a recent survey of downtown merchants, the majority supported a prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. Clearly, banning skateboarding in Central Plaza will make the area a place where people can congregate for fun or for relaxation.”

The above article appeared as an editorial in a local newspaper and the arguer recommends that skateboarding should be banned in Central Plaza and the skateboarders should be moved to Monroe Park. There are various reasons for the banning of skateboarding that the arguer gives. The first reason being that skateboard users are the only people in the plaza along with litter and defaced property which has made the plaza unattractive. The second reason that the arguer gives is the survey which indicates banning of skateboarding in the plaza. Additionally he says that after banning the plaza would become a place of relaxation and fun for people.

While giving the first argument the arguer fails to justify whether the reason for Central Plaza’s lost charm is only skateboarding. There could have been better plazas in the nearby place which the arguer has not mentioned. The arguer suggests that the area for skateboarders should be shifted from Central Plaza to Monroe Park but the arguer has not mentioned any sanction from that place and also whether the skaters in Central Plaza were ever given a sanction or not and if yes then why was it given to them in the first place. The arguer mentions that skaters are the only people seen on the plaza. If the skateboarders are banned from the plaza the probability is that then there would be hardly anybody seen. The arguer fails to mention any specific reason as to why shifting needs to done. The arguer mentions no misbehavior on part of any skater. The reason for the loss of attraction could be the litter and the defaced property which the arguer mentions and if the steps are taken to sort these two problems then there are chances that skaters need not be banned from Central Plaza and moved to Monroe Park.

The second reason which the arguer gives in support of his argument is the survey which supported banning of skateboarding in Central Plaza. The arguer fails to mention the percentage of public that was part of the survey and also the age group of people. In the absence of such facts these assumptions are absolutely baseless as the survey could have been taken by public who dread skateboarding or are not interested in it. The arguer fails to mention whether after banning skateboarding people would prefer that plaza and litter and defaced property do not affect their preference for Central Plaza. The arguer has not given authenticated reasons in support to his argument pertaining to litter and defaced property. The arguer has not mentioned whether people approved of or disapproved of these two factors as they also matter in attracting public to the plaza. The arguer also mentions that after banning skateboarding the plaza would become the place for fun and relaxation; the arguer has not presented sufficient reasons or any support to this argument.

The arguer fails to prove his stand against the argument given in context to banning of skateboarding from Central Plaza. Therefore, the banning would not be correct without any authenticated reasons.