-
rb90
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:14 am
- Location: India
- GMAT Score:710
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
----
The new rules introduced under Commisioner Draco's tenure are not at all practical.They are ridiculous.This is because activities such as littering,graffiti,shoplifting etc. ,referred to as petty "crimes" , are not actually crimes in the real sense. They are a reflection of lack of civic sense and negligence among the civilians of any town. Instead of curbing such activities, these new rules will enrage the public. Such activities should be dealt with by heftily fining the rule violater. Putting him/her behind bars for such an act is not practical.
Now,the campaign states that criminals have been shaken up by such radical rules and regulations. So much so that a survey reveals a 20% dip in crimes such as homicide,in the year succeeding the introduction of such rules. Considering that strict/stern rules have always been in place to curb homicide and other crimes, rules against littering or other petty crimes will have no additional effect on murderers etc. . These rules are infact directed at the general public to maintain cleanliness and discipline regarding thier home city. Hence,a dip in homicides and other such crimes obviously seems indifferent towards such new rules and regulations.
So such new regulations wouldn't alarm the criminals at all. Its supposed to put a check on the public to take care of the environment(in the city).
Consider an example:
Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the attack on the twin towers- The World Trade Centre. Such a villain couldn't be stopped from excecuting such a henious crime. Now, if the government introduced rules sending people ,who litter or spray paint or write graffities in the walls , to jail, would it really have a peanut's worth of impact on Osama Bin Laden?Would he fear a rule that places litterers(or graffiti artists or spraypainters) behind bars?The answer is an obvious no.
Not only Osama Bin Laden, but any hardcore criminal who commits murders would remain undeterred by such "small/meagre" rules. These rules would fly by them like the wind.
Thus we see that this campaign is very poorly reasoned. Criminals will definately not care about such new measures by the police department. Thus, the statement " Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated " cannot be concluded to be a direct result of these new measures.
The campaign can however be edited in such a way so as to make it much more convincing and appealing.Consider the following capmaign:
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began placing fines starting from $ 250 for people who commit petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Civilians in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% rise in trash collections,along with the smallest number of shoplifting complaints from shopkeepers. Thus, our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
By introducing a hefty fine starting from $250, the public will automatically become more conscious about civiv sense and care about the cleanliness in the city, or think twice before coming petty crimes such as graffiti or shoplifting.Thus,the campaign is much more logical and better reasoned.
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
----
The new rules introduced under Commisioner Draco's tenure are not at all practical.They are ridiculous.This is because activities such as littering,graffiti,shoplifting etc. ,referred to as petty "crimes" , are not actually crimes in the real sense. They are a reflection of lack of civic sense and negligence among the civilians of any town. Instead of curbing such activities, these new rules will enrage the public. Such activities should be dealt with by heftily fining the rule violater. Putting him/her behind bars for such an act is not practical.
Now,the campaign states that criminals have been shaken up by such radical rules and regulations. So much so that a survey reveals a 20% dip in crimes such as homicide,in the year succeeding the introduction of such rules. Considering that strict/stern rules have always been in place to curb homicide and other crimes, rules against littering or other petty crimes will have no additional effect on murderers etc. . These rules are infact directed at the general public to maintain cleanliness and discipline regarding thier home city. Hence,a dip in homicides and other such crimes obviously seems indifferent towards such new rules and regulations.
So such new regulations wouldn't alarm the criminals at all. Its supposed to put a check on the public to take care of the environment(in the city).
Consider an example:
Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the attack on the twin towers- The World Trade Centre. Such a villain couldn't be stopped from excecuting such a henious crime. Now, if the government introduced rules sending people ,who litter or spray paint or write graffities in the walls , to jail, would it really have a peanut's worth of impact on Osama Bin Laden?Would he fear a rule that places litterers(or graffiti artists or spraypainters) behind bars?The answer is an obvious no.
Not only Osama Bin Laden, but any hardcore criminal who commits murders would remain undeterred by such "small/meagre" rules. These rules would fly by them like the wind.
Thus we see that this campaign is very poorly reasoned. Criminals will definately not care about such new measures by the police department. Thus, the statement " Criminals in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated " cannot be concluded to be a direct result of these new measures.
The campaign can however be edited in such a way so as to make it much more convincing and appealing.Consider the following capmaign:
"Under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began placing fines starting from $ 250 for people who commit petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. Civilians in Spartanburg must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated, because the following year Spartanburg saw a 20% rise in trash collections,along with the smallest number of shoplifting complaints from shopkeepers. Thus, our town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime."
By introducing a hefty fine starting from $250, the public will automatically become more conscious about civiv sense and care about the cleanliness in the city, or think twice before coming petty crimes such as graffiti or shoplifting.Thus,the campaign is much more logical and better reasoned.
