-
neeraj.gmat
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:34 am
“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.”
The argument claims that the reason behind the drop in Spartanburg is that criminals have understood from jailing the people for petty crimes by the police commissioner that lawlessness will no longer e tolerated and the result is 20% drop in violent crime. Therefore our town should learn from the commissioner’s success. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which is could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First the argument claims that because the criminals have understood that lawlessness would not be tolerated, there is a drop in violent crime. The statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For instance, There may be many other reasons for the drop in violent crimes. There are numerous examples when crime rate has come down in a community due to many reasons other than the fear of punishment to the crime. For example in a post war country there may be a lot of crime, but as the time passes the crime rate comes down eventually because slowly the country stabilizes. Also author fails to clarify that there was no other measure applied to the city such as more policemen may be guarding the city. The argument would have been much clearer if author would have mentioned that there are no other reasons for the drop in crime.
Second, the argument claims that criminals were scared of the punishment. It thus suggests that this is the reason for the drop in crime. It is again a weak claim as for violent crime is never tolerated in any part of the world and no punishment for the petty crimes won’t suggest that the there will be no punishment for violent crimes too. So there is no correlation between punishment for petty crimes and punishment for violent crimes. If any correlation had been shown for the petty and violent crimes before the commissioner’s strategy, it would have been more convincing.
Finally the argument claims that our town should implement the same policy and there should be no tolerance for petty crimes. From this statement again it is not clear that how the same policy will work for all the cities. Without supporting evidences and examples from other cities that the same policy has worked well for them too, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
The argument claims that the reason behind the drop in Spartanburg is that criminals have understood from jailing the people for petty crimes by the police commissioner that lawlessness will no longer e tolerated and the result is 20% drop in violent crime. Therefore our town should learn from the commissioner’s success. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which is could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First the argument claims that because the criminals have understood that lawlessness would not be tolerated, there is a drop in violent crime. The statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For instance, There may be many other reasons for the drop in violent crimes. There are numerous examples when crime rate has come down in a community due to many reasons other than the fear of punishment to the crime. For example in a post war country there may be a lot of crime, but as the time passes the crime rate comes down eventually because slowly the country stabilizes. Also author fails to clarify that there was no other measure applied to the city such as more policemen may be guarding the city. The argument would have been much clearer if author would have mentioned that there are no other reasons for the drop in crime.
Second, the argument claims that criminals were scared of the punishment. It thus suggests that this is the reason for the drop in crime. It is again a weak claim as for violent crime is never tolerated in any part of the world and no punishment for the petty crimes won’t suggest that the there will be no punishment for violent crimes too. So there is no correlation between punishment for petty crimes and punishment for violent crimes. If any correlation had been shown for the petty and violent crimes before the commissioner’s strategy, it would have been more convincing.
Finally the argument claims that our town should implement the same policy and there should be no tolerance for petty crimes. From this statement again it is not clear that how the same policy will work for all the cities. Without supporting evidences and examples from other cities that the same policy has worked well for them too, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence. As a result this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
