-
ilovemgmat
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:19 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Please rate my essay. All suggestions are welcome.
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
In this argument, the author concludes that the legislators are not concerned about the increase of crime rates as violence in movies increases. The premise of the argument is that to tackle the problem of increasing violence, we must establish a board to censor certain movies and must limit admissions to persons over 21 years of age, but the bill calling for such actions failed to receive the majority vote. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion rests on assumptions. for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is fraught with several flaws.
First, the author erroneously assumes that violence in movies is the cause of increase crime rate in the cities. Although increases in violence in movies and increases in crime rates can be statistically correlated, the author has not cited any evidence to show that these two increases have causal relationship. There may be many other factors which caused the increase in crime rate. For example, the laws might have changed and might have become more lenient towards criminals because of which crime rates increased as people feared the law less than before. The argument could be much clearer if the author considered all other factors that could cause increased crime rate and rule them out before reaching to the conclusion.
Second, even if violence in movies were the sole cause of increased crime rates, limiting admission to persons over 21 years of age might not be the solution. It is just as likely that people over 21 years of age will commit crime. The argument provides us with no supporting statement that no person above 21 years of age is likely to commit crime. The argument would be a lot more convincing if the author gave evidence that person above 21 years of age will not commit crime.
Finally, even if all the previous assumptions were warranted, is it not possible that the legislators who did not vote for the bill thought that passing the bill would not impact the crime rate in the city? If so, one cannot say that the legislators are unconcerned about the increase in crime rate in the city. Without much information, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence. The conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant factors. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without all the information, the claim remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
In this argument, the author concludes that the legislators are not concerned about the increase of crime rates as violence in movies increases. The premise of the argument is that to tackle the problem of increasing violence, we must establish a board to censor certain movies and must limit admissions to persons over 21 years of age, but the bill calling for such actions failed to receive the majority vote. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion rests on assumptions. for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is fraught with several flaws.
First, the author erroneously assumes that violence in movies is the cause of increase crime rate in the cities. Although increases in violence in movies and increases in crime rates can be statistically correlated, the author has not cited any evidence to show that these two increases have causal relationship. There may be many other factors which caused the increase in crime rate. For example, the laws might have changed and might have become more lenient towards criminals because of which crime rates increased as people feared the law less than before. The argument could be much clearer if the author considered all other factors that could cause increased crime rate and rule them out before reaching to the conclusion.
Second, even if violence in movies were the sole cause of increased crime rates, limiting admission to persons over 21 years of age might not be the solution. It is just as likely that people over 21 years of age will commit crime. The argument provides us with no supporting statement that no person above 21 years of age is likely to commit crime. The argument would be a lot more convincing if the author gave evidence that person above 21 years of age will not commit crime.
Finally, even if all the previous assumptions were warranted, is it not possible that the legislators who did not vote for the bill thought that passing the bill would not impact the crime rate in the city? If so, one cannot say that the legislators are unconcerned about the increase in crime rate in the city. Without much information, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence. The conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant factors. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without all the information, the claim remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
"Whoever one is, and wherever one is, one is always in the wrong if one is rude." ~Maurice Baring
Rudeness and sarcasm won't be entertained!
Rudeness and sarcasm won't be entertained!
