请问这样的AA可以吗？

sleepwater

Argument 52

In this argument, the author concludes that the construction of the new shopping mall in downtown Oak City is a mistake. As evidence, the author cites the fact that a lot of local businesses have closed and the downtown areas suffers from an severe parking shortage since the new shopping mall has opened. In addition, the author claim that because the owner lives in another city, the profits of the shopping mall are not being returned to the local city community. Moreover, the construction of the new shopping mall is claimed to be responsible for the increased trash and litter in Oak City Park. At first glance, the argument may have some merits, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from three logical flaws.

In the first place, the argument commits a classic instance of  “after this, therefore because of this”. The author assumes that the construction of the new shopping mall is responsible for the closeness the local businesses and the parking problem only because it happens before these events. However, the author fails to provide sufficient information for this causal relationship. It is likely that there are other factors contributing to the problems. For example, the closeness of several businesses could be ascribed to the economic downturn. It is also possible that the parking shortage is due to the increasing interest of the local residents to buy new cars. These are just a few of the factors that could explain the problems cited in the argument. Unless other possible factors that may contribute to the problems are fully considered and ruled out, we cannot accepted the claim that the construction of the new shopping mall should be blamed for all the problems.

In the second place, the author unfairly assume that because the owner of the shopping mall lives in another city, the profits derived from the business will not flowed back to the local city community. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this logical connection. It is likely that in order to expand the business, the owner will use the profits for further investment on the new shopping mall. It is also likely that, although the owner lives in another city, his or her bank account is in Oak City, or that he or she is used to spending money in Oak City. Therefore, it is unwarranted to reach the claim that the owner will not return the profits of the shopping mall to the local community merely because the owner lives in another city.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing because the author provides an incomplete analysis of the situation and, as a result, draw a questionable conclusion. To strengthen this argument, the author would have to provide sufficient evidence for the causal relationship between the construction of the shopping and the current problems cited in the argument. Furthermore, to better assess the argument, more information should be given to substantiate the claim that the profits are not being returned back..
[em24]