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
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The argument claims that under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti because of which 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 and by mentioning above reasons it concludes that the town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, comparing violent crimes such as homicide to petty crimes such as littering and spraying graffiti is wrong. Most of the violent crimes are planned and done by the professionals on the other hand petty crimes can be done by people who are not even aware whether it is a crime.
Second, people who commit violent crimes very well know that if they are caught they will be punished very severely, in other words they do the crimes with this mindset only. Hence, stating that the violent crime decreased with the fear of prosecution is not correct.
Finally, the argument concludes that the town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime, doing this author assumes that the decrease in violent crimes is just by the prosecution of the criminals, who had performed petty crimes and ignores many other reasons such as more patrolling in the suspicious areas, people who are suspecting an attack are going for personal securities etc.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing .It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
"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
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The argument claims that under Police Commissioner Draco, the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti because of which 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 and by mentioning above reasons it concludes that the town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, comparing violent crimes such as homicide to petty crimes such as littering and spraying graffiti is wrong. Most of the violent crimes are planned and done by the professionals on the other hand petty crimes can be done by people who are not even aware whether it is a crime.
Second, people who commit violent crimes very well know that if they are caught they will be punished very severely, in other words they do the crimes with this mindset only. Hence, stating that the violent crime decreased with the fear of prosecution is not correct.
Finally, the argument concludes that the town should learn from Commissioner Draco's success, and begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime, doing this author assumes that the decrease in violent crimes is just by the prosecution of the criminals, who had performed petty crimes and ignores many other reasons such as more patrolling in the suspicious areas, people who are suspecting an attack are going for personal securities etc.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing .It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
