GMAT Essays (AWA)

Argument:
"The recent surge in violence in the west side of the city is a result of shortage of police officers. The violence is also due to lack of political leaders. The situation is actually more acute than being perceived as people of all different cultures and different faiths reside there. And, most of them are young. In order to get rid of the growing violence that threatens the community, the city mayor should take strict measures. At present a lot of attention is being paid to peripheral issues as educational development and creating job opportunities for the youth in the old city. This is greatly inefficient and totally wrong. The mayor should instead focus on violence and crime by doubling the force. This mean reduction of both the budget and the police force in the north side of the city where there is no violence."

Analysis:

The author in the argument states that, the rise of crime in the west side of city is due to several reasons i.e. shortage of police officers, people of different cultures reside there and most of them are young. To take care of the growing violence, the mayor should take strict measures. In the preceding statement the author claims that" mayor should focus on violence and crime by doubling the police force rather than on educational development and creating job opportunities". Though this claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue in author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Recent surge in violence may not be related to shortage of police officers as even though there are many police officers, the surge in violence may not decrease. Also, if people of different cultures stay together, that is not to say, it is a reason for surge in violence, as people of different cultures may be even staying in the north side of the city. Furthermore, if most people are young, by that the author implies that wherever there are young people, there is violence, which is not true. Additionally, educational development and creating job opportunities are not related to violence and both of them are different sectors to take care of. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, recent surge in violence is due to; shortage of police officers and lack of political leaders, by this the author assumes that there will be little or no violence if there are sufficient police officers and political leaders. Secondly, the assumption made that where there are people of different cultures and since most of them are young, there is violence, cannot be considered as true. Thirdly, the author assumes that if mayor stops focusing on educational development and in creating job opportunities and focuses on violence and crime rate then this will lead to decrease in violence. Also, reduction of both budget and police force in north side, is not necessarily a factor to be considered as to solve the problem. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide explication of links between Educational development and creating job opportunities to the increase in violence or crime rate he assumes exists.

While thae author does have some key issues in his premise and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base, the author can provide some examples to support his argument, the mayor can increase the police force in west side but by keeping balance in all parts of the city, he can focus on both education or job opportunities and violence at an equal level in all parts of the city, which may keep the situation under control etc. Though there are several issues with the authors reasoning at present, with research and clarification he could improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on several questionable premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. By taking strict measures against violence and also supporting the educational development and creating job opportunites, the mayor can keep things stable. If the author truly hopes to change his reders mind, he would have to resturcutre his argument.

Hi Architj,

I think this is a great improvement over the last essay of yours I read. You've added a lot of supporting details to the meat of your argument, but I think you should consider the following:

1) The word "the" is more vital than you might realize. There are plenty of examples where you refer to the mayor as simply "mayor." Your opening paragraph has a great example of this, as well as the 2nd paragraph in which you wrote, "Firstly, recent surge..." Review these grammatical errors and make sure you're referring to the entity as THE entity.

2) It still looks like you're using "firstly," "secondly." While not technically incorrect, this does not do a lot to establish your authority and strengthen your argument.

3) Don't waffle between arguments. Even the slightest acknowledgement that the author is correct is not necessary. Stick to your guns and make your arguments clear and strong.

Happy to elaborate further if you'd like.

Best,
Rich