GRE Argument Topic 3

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Task 166 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

The Central Plaza store owner predicts that placing a skateboarding ban in the plaza will restore its economic profitability, given that the increase in the number of skateboarders is the likeliest cause of the increase of vandalism and decrease of business in the area. There are a number of questions that need to be taken into consideration in order to be able to evaluate how effective the store owner’s proposal is.

The first thing that comes to mind when looking at the data presented in the letter is related to how much people are actually bothered by the increase in skateboarders. A possible answer to this question would be that shoppers experience only mild annoyance due to the number of skateboarders, and therefore skateboarding would not constitute the reasons for the decrease in shopper traffic. The alternative answer would entail that the people express being severely bothered by the presence of skateboarders in the plaza, to the point where they would not want to shop there anymore. In this case, the skateboarding ban would be effective in preventing more people to abandon the plaza, and with sufficient time, the traffic in the area would be restored.

When making the recommendation to ban skateboarding in Central Plaza, the store owner assumes that skateboarders are the major cause for the area’s decrease in shopper traffic and business revenue. In order to be able to make this claim, the shop owner should first try to figure out if there are any other reasons for the decrease in traffic and business. Should skateboarders prove to be the sole cause for the economic downturn of the plaza, then it is possible that the area would be restored once the ban is instated. The presence of other reasons like the appearance of a new shopping center, the start of the financial crisis or better competitor prices would suggest that the ban would be ineffective in restoring the economic health of the area, and the Central Plaza storeowners should invest time and money into finding solutions for these causes, like redefining their pricing strategy or launching promotional campaigns.

The storeowner’s letter also begs the question of which process came first – the increase in skateboarders or the decrease in business. The increase of skateboarders before the reduction in shopper numbers would suggest that skateboarders could be a possible cause of the declining economic health of the area, but it does not necessarily imply that they are the main cause, as seen above with the other listed potential explanations. However, should the opposite become evident, namely that the number of shoppers coming to the plaza started declining before the skateboarders began frequenting the area, then this evidence would remove the blame from the skateboarders, since the problem existed beforehand. It is possible that skateboarders only started coming into the area because of the low foot traffic – a big open area with few numbers of people is more conductive to skateboarding than a bustling shopping center.

The storeowner’s letter seems to strongly suggest that there is a link between skateboarders and the vandalism and littering in the area. Before resting the blame squarely on the shoulders of a single group of people, the store owner should ask himself whether there are any other possible vandalism culprits aside from skateboarders. The existence of other groups that are capable of committing the crime in the area means that a skateboarding ban is less likely to put a stop to the vandalism in the area. If there are no other groups in the area that could commit the crime, then the possibility that the skateboarders are responsible for the vandalism increases tenfold. In this case a skateboarding ban will have a great impact on the number of vandalism acts committed during shopping times and depending on the customer’s opinion on the deterrent effect of vandalism, it might even increase traffic in the area. This point raises another valid question that needs to be answered before the recommendations of the letter are implemented, namely: is vandalism related to the decrease in business and shopper traffic? If people consider it a major deterrent to shopping in Central Plaza then a skateboarding ban has a chance of invigorating the area’s foot traffic, should skateboarders prove to be responsible for the acts. In this case a better use of resources would be to investigate and corroborate with the local police agents in order to discover the culprits, or organize patrols at night, when the crimes are most likely to occur. Should the vandalism prove to be unimportant to the people’s decisions of shopping in the area it would not have much of a bearing on whether or not a skateboarding ban would be efficient.

The storeowners’ assumption that skateboarders might be responsible for the vandalism in the area needs to be supported by evidence, in order to validate the claim. The store owners of Central Plaza should first investigate whether there is any evidence directly linking the vandalism to the skateboarders before making their decision. Any kind of physical evidence like camera footage, or witness testimonies would be highly helpful in assessing the claim in the letter. The existence of such evidence would also make it easier to take action by involving the police in the proceedings.

Another question that comes to mind when analyzing the effects of the skateboarding ban on the plaza’s economy is whether or not the skateboarders will actually respect the ban, once it is in place. If the answer to that question is no, then even if the skateboarders were to blame for the decrease in shoppers, the implementation of the measure would be useless since it would not be effective in deterring skateboarders from coming to the plaza. Should skateboarders be inclined to respect the ban, then its overall effectiveness would still depend on people’s attitudes towards skateboarding.

All the issues discussed above represent just a small amount of the questions that need to be taken into consideration by the Central Plaza store owners so that they can have a better overview of the situation before making a decision. Much more evidence than what is presented in the letter needs to be brought to attention so that the shop owners can make an informed decision.