-
sachindia
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
- Location: Bengaluru, India
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:640
Read the statement(s) and the instructions that follow, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response in the box at the bottom of the screen.
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 argument states that the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifiting, and spraying grafitti under the orders of Police Commissioner Draco. Argument also states that because of aforesaid measures undertaken, the criminals in Spartanburg might have understood that lawlessness would not be tolerated any more and thus there was a 20% drop in the violent crimes such as homicide. Argument then concludes that Barchester town also must begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime. This argument is flawed and unconvincing because it makes many unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, it assumes that city of Spartanburg and the city of Velazquez are very much similar in characteristics. It is very much possible that there are very less criminals in Barchester and crime rate might be very low in comparison to Spartanburg.
Secondly, it assumes that the large scale crackdown on petty crime is the sole reason for the reduction of violent crimes such as homicide. It is very much possible that the reduction in violent crimes is due to other factors such as general improvement in the standard of living in the city of Spartunburg and this change might be responsible for reduced number of crimes in the city. There can be other reasons such as peace making efforts from NGOs in the city of Spartunburg.
Thirdly, it assumes that the number of criminals and crimes in Barchester is same as those of Spartunburg. This assumption may not be true. Population of Barchester might be very much little compared to Spartunburg.
Thus, the argument is unconvincing and inherently flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be strengthened if the data about the demographics and characteristics of both the cities are provided. In addition, there have to be some convincing facts which would ascertain the large-scale crackdown on petty crime as the sole reason for the reduction of the violent crimes.
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 argument states that the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifiting, and spraying grafitti under the orders of Police Commissioner Draco. Argument also states that because of aforesaid measures undertaken, the criminals in Spartanburg might have understood that lawlessness would not be tolerated any more and thus there was a 20% drop in the violent crimes such as homicide. Argument then concludes that Barchester town also must begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime. This argument is flawed and unconvincing because it makes many unwarranted assumptions.
Firstly, it assumes that city of Spartanburg and the city of Velazquez are very much similar in characteristics. It is very much possible that there are very less criminals in Barchester and crime rate might be very low in comparison to Spartanburg.
Secondly, it assumes that the large scale crackdown on petty crime is the sole reason for the reduction of violent crimes such as homicide. It is very much possible that the reduction in violent crimes is due to other factors such as general improvement in the standard of living in the city of Spartunburg and this change might be responsible for reduced number of crimes in the city. There can be other reasons such as peace making efforts from NGOs in the city of Spartunburg.
Thirdly, it assumes that the number of criminals and crimes in Barchester is same as those of Spartunburg. This assumption may not be true. Population of Barchester might be very much little compared to Spartunburg.
Thus, the argument is unconvincing and inherently flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be strengthened if the data about the demographics and characteristics of both the cities are provided. In addition, there have to be some convincing facts which would ascertain the large-scale crackdown on petty crime as the sole reason for the reduction of the violent crimes.
Regards,
Sach
Sach
