The essay is missing the remedial part.
Your points
1. "weak" cause and effect relationship between the drop and the legislation
2. without ruling out any other plausible factor we cannot evaluate the persuasiveness of the conclusion
3. Last point. Fab
Freedom is the fundamental right of the people and cannot be surrendered for the sake of little incremental safety.
Revisions on 1 - 3 points :
The argument relies on the weak analogy between city of Barchester and the city of Spartanburg. The argument does not provide evidence to prove that city of Barchester and Spartanburg are comparable in size, population density or the crime rate. Unless the argument cites evidence to establish beyond doubt that the two cities are comparable, any advice to reduce the crime on the basis of incarceration will amount to poor advice. It is entirely possible that the sampled areas in Spartanburg have experienced a drop in population size, which has caused the overall crime percentage to drop without actually reducing the crime.
The argument relies on the weak cause and effect relationship between the legislation and falling crime rate in Spartanburg. It provides no evidence to substantiate the claim that legislation is the sole and the only cause of the reduction in crime rate. It is entirely possible that the argument has confused a mere correlation with cause and effect or there might be a third and unknown factor responsible for the reduction in the crime rate. Without completely ruling out any other plausible cause the advise that the crime can be curbed just on the basis of legislation looses its merit, whatsoever.
Finally, the advice given by the argument is tantamount to giving up the right to freedom. Freedom is the most fundamental and cherished virtue of the American constitution and cannot be surrendered for the sake of incremental safety, especially when the outcome of the legislation is unknown.
The first flaw – the weak analogy between city of Barchester and Spartanburg can be fixed by offering data or citing statistics to prove that the demographic trend, the population density and the factor like the crime rates are comparable in the two cities. The second flaw – the vague cause and effect relationship between the legislation and the falling crime rate can be remedied by providing studies or data to prove that legislation is the sole cause of crime reduction in the city of Spartanburg. Lastly, the argument should take a poll and concurrence from the residents of the city Barchester to prove beyond doubt that they are in favor of such legislation. Since it is not the legislation but it is the compliance with the law that is more important in curtailing the crime rate. All and all the argument is weak, vague and relies on several questionable assumptions. Hence it is not completely sound.
mattdrummer wrote:
Hi, I've done a couple of practice AWAs and am pretty sure I'm off track but not quite sure where. I've read the guide on here and the tips in one or two books but still feel a bit short of understanding what's required. If anyone has time to look at any of these and point out obvious ways I'm going wrong I'd really appreciate it.
Cheers,
Matt
Analyze Argument #1
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, etc....
YOUR RESPONSE:
The campaign statement highlights a 20% drop in violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg and asserts that this outcome was achieved by adopting a policy of jailing people for committing petty crimes. It argues that there is a causal relationship between the policy and the drop in violent crimes, and therefore that Barchester can achieve the same outcome by adopting the same policy.
In order to evaluate this argument, it is therefore necessary to evaluate the evidence for this causal relationship. In order to demonstrate a causal relationship between an action and an outcome, one needs to show that there could have been no other cause of that outcome. However, the campaign statement does not address potential alternative causes of the drop in violent crimes.
Such an alternative cause could be, for example, a state-wide change in legislation on gun ownership. If such a change in legislation was effective, we may expect to see a drop in violent crime in all cities in the state or nation. To rule out such an alternative explanation it would be helpful to know whether rates of violent crime dropped in other cities that did not adopt the policy of jailing people for petty crime.
It would also be useful to know more about the situation in Spartanburg specifically, in order to see if there were any other policy or socio-economic changes that could provide an alternative explanation for the drop in violent crimes.
Without such evidence to hand, the argument is weak. The reader is left in a position where they must guess as to the legitimacy of the asserted cause and effect relationship.
Finally, the argument may be criticised on other grounds. It implies that the goal of reducing violent crimes is worth the cost of significantly curtailing people's liberty for minor crimes. This is a view that many people would disagree with, as it is widely recognised that one's freedom not to be imprisoned without good reason has such value that it can outweigh almost anything. A relevant example of this is the recent threat to civil liberties posed by anti-terror legislation. Although that legislation is designed to ensure people's safety, many people feel that the curtailment of their liberties is not a price worth paying for that extra safety.
In summary, the argument does not rule out alternative explanations for the drop in violent crimes in Spartanburg, and therefore does not establish causality between the policy and the drop in violent crimes. This means that it is not persuasive in drawing the conclusion that Barchester should follow the same example. In addition, the argument make assumptions, about the value of reducing violent crime at almost any cost, that many people would question or reject. It is not, therefore, a convincing argument.
(462 words)
close
Updated on: 19 Oct 2010, 13:42
