Please evaluate my first AWA and suggest points for improvement
[#permalink]
13 Sep 2015, 10:32
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument as a part of Velazquez's campaign states that the town of Barchester should jail people for committing petty crimes in order to start a large-scale crackdown on petty crimes and hence, cause a reduction in violent crimes such as homicide. The argument justifies the claim with an example of the city of Spartanburg where people were jailed for committing petty crimes and a reduction was observed in occurrence of violent crimes such as homicide. Stated in the way, the argument fails to mention several key factor, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence, Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the impact of large-scale crackdown on petty crimes will be same in the town of Barchester as it was in the city of Spartanburg. This statement is a stretch as it fails to provide any background about the existing crimes being committed in Barchester. It is possible that the rate of crimes such as littering, shoplifting, etc. is already low in the town as compared to Spartanburg. The argument could have been much clearer if any information about the rate of crimes was provided.
Secondly, the argument claims that large-scale crackdown on petty crimes will have an impact on violent crimes. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between people involved in petty crimes and criminals involved in violent crimes. It is incorrect to assume that people involved in petty crimes are the ones who will eventually be involved in violent crimes like homicide. If the argument had provided any evidence that the people committing petty crimes will commit heinous crimes, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument fails to mention if the city of Spartanburg implemented any other measure that led to a reduction in rate of violent crimes. It is possible that the citizens themselves became much aware about the problem of crime happening in the city and took preventive measure to address it rather than have police deal with the criminals. Without any convincing evidence in this regard, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if full knowledge of all contributing factors is provided. In this case, we are required to know about the background of crimes in Barchester and whether any other measures were taken to reduce the crime rate in Spartanburg. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.