Do I get a 5.0 with this?
[#permalink]
13 Oct 2014, 19:24
Hi Gmat people,
I am trying to determine whether I should stop worrying about this section of the test and wanted to check with you if you think this essay deserves a 5.0 or not.
Your collaboration is highly appreciated!
- Number of Words: 413
- Typos / Grammar Mistakes: 2
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.”
MY RESPONSE
This passage states that since the city of Spartanburg began jailing people for committing small crimes such as littering, shoplifting, or spraying graffiti, the town experienced a 20% decrease in violent crimes such as homicide in the following year. Consequently, Velazquez, a politician who is seeking election for the town of Balderman, proposes to replicate this measure in his city in order to achieve similar results. Even though this passage may seem to have some merit at a very first glance, its conclusion is unfortunately not supported by the evidence offered.
First and foremost, the author makes a causal link between jailing people that committed petty crimes and a drop in violent crimes without considering other plausible explanations. One could definitely argue that there could be several factors that could make the number of violent crimes decrease such as an improvement in the police force, more lights in the city, or a rise in employment. Furthermore, it could also be the case that the actual number of violent crimes did not drop but what actually decreased was the number of reported crimes by the citizens. Not only does Velazquez omit all these counterexamples but he also fails to provide sound evidence to strengthen his position.
Second, this argument contains severe analogical fallacies that certainly cast doubt on the author´s line of reasoning. Petty crimes are compared to violent crimes when this comparison is clearly ill-founded. In a weak attempt to bolster his main claim, the writer of the passage seems to be comfortable with calling "crime" or "criminals" to a structure that is definitely more complex. In order to evaluate this logic, one should ask oneself such questions as whether spraying graffiti is the same as committing murder.
Third, the author also compares the cities of Spartanburg and Barchester but fails to present evidence on whether these two towns are actually comparable. Factors such as the size of the cities, the laws that run for both, and the public opinion are decisive variables that would help the reader understand whether what was implemented in one town in the past could actually be put in place in another city.
To summarize, this flawed argument would have been made more convincing had it addressed all of the above points. It presents causal and analogical flaws and is therefore unsound and not correctly supported. Finally, more thorough information should have been presented in order to provide more precise data about the current situation of both towns.