Rudy55

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 of the above letter makes the unwarranted assumption that prohibiting skateboarding will result in Central Plaza’s (“the Plaza”) return to its previously high levels of business. The store owner’s reasoning for this argument is that the increasing number of people skateboarding in the Plaza is the direct reason for a decrease in the number of shoppers frequenting the plaza, which has resulted in less business. Additionally, the author makes the implicit assumption that the skateboarders have been littering and vandalizing the plaza. However, the author does not address the questions necessary to validate the prohibition of skateboarding in the Plaza. First, the letter argues the that the shoppers have stopped coming to the Plaza over the past two years because they do not like the skateboarding scene. Perhaps, the skateboarders are disruptive and cause chaos in the Plaza. However, this cannot be confirmed unless the author first evaluates the other possible reasons for a decrease in shoppers. For example, a new plaza could have opened up nearby, which attracted the Plaza’s usual shoppers. This would in turn result in less shoppers at the Plaza. Another possible reason is there could be construction around the Plaza, making it hard or a pain for shoppers to get there. Thus, the author must ask the question of what else could be decreasing the number of shoppers before assuming it is the increase in skateboarding. This can be done through surveying the nearby communities or surveying the past shoppers. Next, the letter states that the storeowners believe the decrease in their business is due to the increased number of skateboarders, who are driving away the shoppers. In order to validate this statement, one must ask the question of what else could be decreasing business. Similarly to the above reasoning, there is a plethora of other possibilities for a decrease in business. For example, the stores could simply be outdated and no longer attractive to shoppers. Moreover, the stores could have raised their prices two years ago, resulting in less business. If prices have stayed the same and the stores have continuously updated their inventory, then this would strengthen the decision to prohibit skateboarders in the Plaza. However, the author must first carefully analyze why their is a decrease in business. Finally, the letter implicitly states that the increase in litter and vandalism is a result of the skateboarders and, therefore, prohibiting skateboarding will solve the issue at hand, resulting in the return of shoppers. This assumption is unwarranted because there is no concrete evidence that the skateboarders are the culprits. Frankly, it is unfair to assume the skateboarders are littering and vandalizing without any concrete evidence, such as video footage. The Plaza should enforce night security or install video cameras to catch the individuals in the act. If the skateboarders are caught in the act, then prohibiting them becomes more valid. Notably, the vandalism and litter may not be the reason why shoppers have stopped frequenting the Plaza. With the present lack of evidence, prohibiting skateboarding will not surely fix the littering/vandalizing issue and a clean, non-vandalized Plaza may not attract back customers. Overall, the letter fails to provide substantial evidence that prohibiting skateboarding will increase the Plaza’s business to its previously high levels. The author must first decipher why there is a lack of shoppers, perhaps by surveying the nearby communities. Next, the author must rule out the other reasons for a decrease in business. Finally, the author must provide concrete evidence as to which individuals are responsible for the littering and vandalism in the Plaza. If the answers to these questions point to the increase in skateboarding, then prohibiting skateboarders will likely result in an increase in the Plaza’s business, warranting the store owner’s plea.

Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years. Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. In order to generate success and justice, those in power should not be allowed to rule indefinitely. There must be equal opportunity for others to come into leadership roles, as these new leaders will bring with them innovative and fresh ideas that can increase the likelihood of success. Without a change in leadership, any enterprise runs the risk of becoming stale, falling behind with the times, or, at an extreme, remaining under the power of a harsh and unfair leader. In any field, the duration of one’s role in a leadership or position of power should be capped at a maximum of five years in order to stay on the path to success, which is dependent upon the creativeness and new energy that comes from new leadership. The issue at hand is correct in stating that the surest path to success for any institution in any field, including business, education, politics and government, is an increase in energy and creativeness through new leadership. For example, new ideas are vital to any business staying relevant in the changing times. Often, the energy of a new leader will subsequently result in fresh, new innovative ideas and actions. Similarly in education, a fresh face in power can shake up rules or principles that have been in place for decades. Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to see where an enterprise has gone complacent and, subsequently, enact change. Furthermore, enforcing a maximum time that a leader can be in power can help avoid absolute power from forming. Throughout history, dictators and totalitarians have reigned for decades, unfortunately resulting in often corrupt and dystopian-like societies. If there is no minimum sentence on governmental roles, then absolute powers are more likely to form. This example can be taken from a less severe angle as well. For example, if a Republican was elected president and able to serve for an indefinite amount of time, then the opposite party would be at an unfair disadvantage. Thus, it is imperative that people in power, especially in roles that dictate over the livelihoods of others or societies on a whole, automatically step down after a certain amount of time. However, one might argue that a quick turnover in leadership can be detrimental to enacting change. Indeed, change does not happen overnight. A person in power must first master the position, learning the ins-and-outs of the role, before they can enact change that will actually make a significant different. In any field, it takes awhile to master a management or leadership role, and 5 years may not be ample time for someone to truly come into the role. Regardless, the risk of an individual in an indefinite position of power outweighs the risk of cutting leadership roles short before they can really master a position because an everlasting leadership position can result in harsh ruling or a monopoly. Overall, a 5-year time limit of roles of power benefits any enterprises chances at success and satisfaction. Change in leadership increases the chances of an institution’s success because new leaders bring with them new ideas. Furthermore, people in power should have a time limit on their positions in order to avoid absolute power, which can result in harsh ruling or other detrimental societal consequences. If enterprises become complacent and do not elicit change through new leadership, then they will inevitably suffer.