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.”


First the author's reasoning that the crackdown of petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting and spraying graffiti and in turn arresting those people was the main cause in the drop of violent crimes is arguable. The author does not consider the fact that the people who committed petty crimes were in fact the people who would have committed violent crimes and since they were in the jail the crime rate dropped.

Second the assumption that the Criminals understood that lawlessness in not tolerated can be refuted. The criminals might have held back based on these arrests but they might come back later on.

Third The author points out that the other town needs to follow Draco's success and being crackdown on petty crimes. For example the people who commit petty crimes are not the criminals who actually commit the violent crimes. Furthermore, what if there are no criminals who commits petty crimes.

Fourth the author needs to consider other aspects of Commissioner Draco's success. Did the commissioner do anything other than the arrests of petty criminals? Were there any increase of policemen in his force during the year when the crime rate reduced.

Finally the author needs to consider the nature of the crimes to actually assert that what worked for Commissioner Draco would actually work for the other town. If the author considers all the reasoning and counter arguments mentioned above then it would be plausible