Passage Summary: We shouldn't ban a risky activity if the ban would just push people into doing something even more dangerous, especially when our whole goal is to keep them safe.

Conclusion: The town should not pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in River Park.

Reasoning: The goal of such ordinances is to protect children, but banning skateboarding in the park would force children into the streets, which is even more dangerous.

Analysis: The councillor uses a 'lesser of two evils' logic to argue against a new rule. The structure is: 'We have a specific goal (safety). Action X seems to support that goal, but Action X actually leads to Result Y, which is worse for our goal than the current situation.' It’s a very pragmatic, outcome-based argument. You should look for an answer choice that rejects a policy because its side effects would undermine the very purpose the policy was meant to serve.