The notion that the prohibition of the skateboarders on the premise of the Central Plaza will help the

latter to alleviate the business seems to be an obvious conclusion. But if the extract is perused
properly, one can ponder over the several fallacies that have made the authors conclusion void.
Firstly, the popularity of Central Plaza has not been mentioned. There is a possibility that a new Plaza
was built which had more footfalls than Central Plaza. Also, since a chronical comparison was drawn,
the author did not mention what was the total number of visitors in Central Plaza two years back,
furthermore, the current public footfalls are not given as well, so the basis of this comparison is not
justified. Again, nothing has been mentioned about the kinds of shops that Central Plaza hosts; to save
time, people expect to get everything under the same roof, and it is possible that Central Plaza does
not make the cut in this context. Then, the location and connectivity to Central Plaza has not been
elucidated, it can be the case that the plaza is located at an unconventional place which is not well
connected with public transports, hence people stopped visiting it. The author also did not cite
anything about the timings of the Central Plaza, it might be closed on holidays, and the timings are
not shopper friendly. Similarly, the reason behind the popularity of the skateboarders is not stated,
may be the latter got cheered up by the public itself, hence blaming the skateboarders for the decline
of business in Central Plaza makes little sense.
Secondly, there is an assumption that the author has made about the particular belief of certain shop
owners regarding the decline in the business due to the increased skateboarding activities. Unless and
until, all the shop owners or a good proportion of them agree to this belief, it cannot be concluded that
the plummeting business is because of the skateboarders. Also, the architectural plan of Central Plaza
has not been mentioned, whether it favors skateboarding or not. Then again, if Central Plaza was
multi-storied, then the ground floor shop owners might be having issues with the skateboarders, and
every thing in the other floors are going well, this was also not cited. The declining business may be
because of the incompetency of the shop owners to attract customers, an economic breakdown and a
deteriorating infrastructure of Central Plaza itself, thus, the real reason behind this ordeal was not
verified.
Then, the author has mentioned about the increasing amount of litter in Central Plaza, if the latter has
vegetables, meat, poultry and fish shops on its premises, litter would have increased, also, may be the
shop owners or the house keeping staffs did not clean these litters regularly. Again, the hygiene
condition of the plaza two years back is not stated. Hence, without a proper data, the readers can
conject many inferences that will not favor the authors conclusion. Then, what did the author actually
mean by increased vandalism over two years, did he mean that the skateboarders were responsible for
it, or even the kith and kin of vandalism is not mentioned. It might be possible that Central Plaza is an
obscure place for anti-social activities at ungodly hours, and the vandalism was a result of this. Hence,
circumstantial evidences, the authors conclusion becomes more muddling.
Throughout the discussion, it is not clear enough to assume that if skateboarding is banned, then the
business in Central Plaza will wax, hence the conclusion of the author is ambiguous. But to bolster the
business of Central Plaza, the store owners could come up with new schemes to attract customers, the
administrative body of the plaza can execute a public survey to understand the shoppers need, also
security can be increased to deal with any kind of vandalism, skateboarders if popular among public, a
particular place inside the Central Plaza can be allotted to them so that the footfalls of shoppers do not
decrease. If the pieces of information were given in the extract, they would have made the authors
conclusion more viable and credible.