GMAT Essays (AWA)

ESSAY QUESTION:
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.

YOUR RESPONSE:
Velazquez, a candidate for the postion as alderman in the town of Barchester, argues that jailing people for committing petty crimes leads to a drop in violent crimes. His argument is flawed for three reasons. First of all, Velazquez's argument is based on an assumption which might not be true, secondly, he constructs a casual relationship which is possibly incorrect, and thirdly, he does not mention additional supporting information. The three counter-arguments are the described in the following paragraphs.


First of all, Velazquez assumes that the two cities, which he compares, are actually comparable. The city of Barchester and the city of Spartanburg might not be comparable in different ways.
One way may be that different judical systems apply to each city which may make it impossible to begin prosecuting people for petty crimes in Barchester. Another aspect in which the cities could differ is that of the number of police men. A smaller number of police men in Barchester relative to that of Spartanburg may make it hard to identify petty crimes and impossible to follow up on them.

Secondly, Velazquez's constructs a casual relationship between the jailing people for committing petty crimes and the drop in violent crimes. Contrary to Velazquez's reasoning, different causes of the drop in violent crimes are possible. For example, preventive measure established in Spartanburg might have cause the drop or a larger number of police men on the streets (who are following up on petty crimes) might have an effect on people who would otherwise commit violent crimes.

Thirdly, Velazquez could strengthen his argument by provinding additional information on the situation in Spartanburg. IFor example, a study could have found that people who were arrested for petty crimes did previously commit violent crimes and that this group of people usually repetitively commits crimes. Based on this additional information, Velazquez could argue that jailing people for committing petty crimes prevents violent crimes and Barchester should follow Spartanburg example.


As show above, Velazquez's argument that jailing people for committing petty crimes leads to a drop in violent crimes is flawed. First of all, Velazquez bases his argument on the assumption that Barchester and Spartanburg are comparable but does not provide evidence for this. Secondly, he argues that increased prosecution of petty crimes leads to fewer violent crimes, even though there might be no casual relationship. Thirdly, Velazquez does not provide additional information to strengthen his argument.