Passage Summary: A letter writer argues that the city council is lying about why they banned loitering. The writer's logic is that because the ban won't actually fix the overcrowding problem, fixing overcrowding couldn't have been their real intention.

Conclusion: The city council's actual goals for the loitering ordinance cannot be the reduction of overcrowding and pedestrian congestion.

Reasoning: The ordinance, even if fully implemented, would not actually succeed in reducing overcrowding or congestion at the mall.

Analysis: The author is making a huge leap by assuming that if a plan fails to achieve its goal, that goal must not have been the 'real' one. This ignores the very human possibility that the city council is simply incompetent or mistaken about what the ordinance would achieve. In the world of logic, intent is separate from outcome. Look for an answer that points out this flaw: the author confuses the effectiveness of a policy with the intentions of the people who created it.