The following appeared as part of a campaign statement for Velazquez, who is seeking election as alderman in the town of Barchester:
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the twenty percent decrease in the violent crimes in Barchester is due to increased enforcement of law on small crimes such as littering and shoplifting. Furthermore, as a result of that reasoning, the writer proposes a large-scale campaign against petty crimes. Though the author's claim may well have merit, his argument is poorly reasoned, based on questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on the evidence the writer offers, we can not accept his statement as valid. Most conspicuously, in his argument the editorial composer makes unsupported relations between violent crimes and small crimes and fails to consider other possible outcomes.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantial premises. The writer erroneously assumes that petty crimes are related to violent crimes and moreover implies that a severe police action against the former would inevitably lead to decrease in the latter. It could be entirely possible, that petty crimes are actually performed by teenagers, while violent crimes are done by convicted criminals or ex-prisoners. As a result, the police action would not lead to decreasing homicides or robberies, but would decrease shopliftings and spraying graffiti.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. He wrongly assumes that the drop in violent crimes with twenty percent is due to some police action or activity without providing more evidential support or presenting statistics. It could be possible that the decrease in homicides or robberies is due to decrease in population of Barchester and consequently that could explain the decrease in the number of violent crimes.
Though, the author's reasoning is flawed by his questionable assumptions and premises, the argument could be improved by providing more research and clarifications. For example, the writer could present the number of police officers in the town in order to show whether the police capacity is enough to deal with violent crimes and also to prevent small ones.
In sum, the writer's illogical statement is based on questionable premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author, hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to provide more evidential support, fix the flaws in his logic and explicate his assumptions. Without these things, his argument would likely convince few people.
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes such as homicide. Our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the twenty percent decrease in the violent crimes in Barchester is due to increased enforcement of law on small crimes such as littering and shoplifting. Furthermore, as a result of that reasoning, the writer proposes a large-scale campaign against petty crimes. Though the author's claim may well have merit, his argument is poorly reasoned, based on questionable premises and assumptions and based solely on the evidence the writer offers, we can not accept his statement as valid. Most conspicuously, in his argument the editorial composer makes unsupported relations between violent crimes and small crimes and fails to consider other possible outcomes.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantial premises. The writer erroneously assumes that petty crimes are related to violent crimes and moreover implies that a severe police action against the former would inevitably lead to decrease in the latter. It could be entirely possible, that petty crimes are actually performed by teenagers, while violent crimes are done by convicted criminals or ex-prisoners. As a result, the police action would not lead to decreasing homicides or robberies, but would decrease shopliftings and spraying graffiti.
In addition, the author makes assumptions that remain unproven. He wrongly assumes that the drop in violent crimes with twenty percent is due to some police action or activity without providing more evidential support or presenting statistics. It could be possible that the decrease in homicides or robberies is due to decrease in population of Barchester and consequently that could explain the decrease in the number of violent crimes.
Though, the author's reasoning is flawed by his questionable assumptions and premises, the argument could be improved by providing more research and clarifications. For example, the writer could present the number of police officers in the town in order to show whether the police capacity is enough to deal with violent crimes and also to prevent small ones.
In sum, the writer's illogical statement is based on questionable premises and assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author, hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to provide more evidential support, fix the flaws in his logic and explicate his assumptions. Without these things, his argument would likely convince few people.
