-
gmattesttaker2
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:52 pm
- Thanked: 11 times
- Followed by:8 members
Hello,
I was just wondering if you can please grade my essay. This is from MGMAT CAT3. Thank you very much for your valuable time and help.
Best Regards,
Sri
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.
My Response:
In this argument for Velazquez, a comparision is made between the town of Barchester and the city of Spartanburg. The argument states that since Police Commissioner Draco began jailing people for petty crimes, there was drop in violent crimes. Here, a comparision is made between punishing people for petty crimes and it's impact on violent crimes. It is not clear how jailing people who commit petty crimes could impact people who commit more serious and violent crimes.
The argument might be implying that by punishing petty criminals and jailing them, they are prevented from committing more serious and violent crimes like homicide, slayings etc. However, this is not very clear from the argument. If the argument presented some proof or statistics that petty criminals if unpunished moved onto more serious crimes, then this argument might hold more ground. Usually, petty crimes esp. littering and spraying graffiti are commited by vandals and mischief mongers. Whereas crimes like homicide are committed by violent criminals. In-fact, meting out severe punishment for an act like spraying graffiti which sometimes are done by rebellious youngsters might make them despise the system even more and might even turn them into more serious offenders.
Another flaw here is that a comparision is made between the city of Spartanburg and the town of Barchester. Since the argument itself is stating that these are 2 different geographic areas, namely a city and a town, it is not clear how the same "formula" that was used in the city of Spartanburg can be applied to the town of Barchester. They might have totally different types of crimes and people who are perpetrating them. Besides given the fact that one is a city and the other is a town, the demographics and socio-economic conditions might vary vastly.
Also, the argument does not state the extent of petty crimes committed especially in Barchester. If Barchester has a very small instance of petty crimes and a very large extent of violent crimes, then handing out such severe punishment for acts like spraying graffiti and littering might not be a great idea. A better solution would be to educate people about cleanliness and respecting public propery. Since people often shoplift thinking that it's a prank or realising that it's not severe, stores can warn people of the severity of shoplifting and of the ramifications involved. This might be a better approach since it is proactive rather than reactive. Besides, it also takes the burden off of law enforcement and helps them to focus on and prevent more serious and violent crimes.
Hence, though the argument cites an example wherein jailing people for petty crimes resulted in a drop in violent crimes, though just by 20%, unless the argument presents more evidence it is hard to find a connection between these two. Besides, just because this worked in one city does not mean that this will work in another city, let alone a town. This argument can be improved by presenting solid facts and evidence and proof of how this approach has been success in other cities as well.
I was just wondering if you can please grade my essay. This is from MGMAT CAT3. Thank you very much for your valuable time and help.
Best Regards,
Sri
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.
My Response:
In this argument for Velazquez, a comparision is made between the town of Barchester and the city of Spartanburg. The argument states that since Police Commissioner Draco began jailing people for petty crimes, there was drop in violent crimes. Here, a comparision is made between punishing people for petty crimes and it's impact on violent crimes. It is not clear how jailing people who commit petty crimes could impact people who commit more serious and violent crimes.
The argument might be implying that by punishing petty criminals and jailing them, they are prevented from committing more serious and violent crimes like homicide, slayings etc. However, this is not very clear from the argument. If the argument presented some proof or statistics that petty criminals if unpunished moved onto more serious crimes, then this argument might hold more ground. Usually, petty crimes esp. littering and spraying graffiti are commited by vandals and mischief mongers. Whereas crimes like homicide are committed by violent criminals. In-fact, meting out severe punishment for an act like spraying graffiti which sometimes are done by rebellious youngsters might make them despise the system even more and might even turn them into more serious offenders.
Another flaw here is that a comparision is made between the city of Spartanburg and the town of Barchester. Since the argument itself is stating that these are 2 different geographic areas, namely a city and a town, it is not clear how the same "formula" that was used in the city of Spartanburg can be applied to the town of Barchester. They might have totally different types of crimes and people who are perpetrating them. Besides given the fact that one is a city and the other is a town, the demographics and socio-economic conditions might vary vastly.
Also, the argument does not state the extent of petty crimes committed especially in Barchester. If Barchester has a very small instance of petty crimes and a very large extent of violent crimes, then handing out such severe punishment for acts like spraying graffiti and littering might not be a great idea. A better solution would be to educate people about cleanliness and respecting public propery. Since people often shoplift thinking that it's a prank or realising that it's not severe, stores can warn people of the severity of shoplifting and of the ramifications involved. This might be a better approach since it is proactive rather than reactive. Besides, it also takes the burden off of law enforcement and helps them to focus on and prevent more serious and violent crimes.
Hence, though the argument cites an example wherein jailing people for petty crimes resulted in a drop in violent crimes, though just by 20%, unless the argument presents more evidence it is hard to find a connection between these two. Besides, just because this worked in one city does not mean that this will work in another city, let alone a town. This argument can be improved by presenting solid facts and evidence and proof of how this approach has been success in other cities as well.
