GRADE MY ESSAY PLEASE :)

I take my exam tomorrow... I just kind of winged this... let me know!

Best,

Scott


“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.”


The following campaign statement for Velazquez includes many flaws that ultimately weaken it's conclusion. The lack of statistical data demonstrating the success of Draco jailing people for petty crimes in Spartanburg, lack of evidence explaining how the town of Barchester is similar to the town of Spartanburg, and lack of research explaining how jailing people for petty crimes leads to a drop in violent crimes create an illogical argument.

The first claim provides no evidence that jailing people for petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti was a success. The argument should include information regarding how many people in Spartanburg committed such crimes before the jailing, and after the jailing. Without information that would be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the jailing, we are left to wonder and make our own judgements about how Draco created an environment where lawlessness would not be tolerated.

The second claim makes a correlation between the effectiveness of jailing individuals for petty crimes in Spartanburg to a drop in violent crimes in Spartanburg. There is no information regarding whether or not the same type of individuals that stop committing petty crimes would also stop committing violent crimes. Individuals that have a history of littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti probably don't have the same motive for committing violent crimes such as homicide or murder. Usually those that commit such crimes do so for the "thrill" factor, not to be in an environment where they ultimately cause the death of another individual. If there was information about the characteristics of people that commit petty crimes, in addition to those who commit violent crimes in Spartanburg before and after the jailing of individuals for petty crimes, we would then have more information to evaluate the correlation. Otherwise, this claim is very flawed, and ultimately illogical.

The third and final flaw of Velazquez's campaign statement involves comparing the city of Barchester to the city of Spartanburg. This apples to oranges correlation is weak because there is no statistical data or information that alludes to these two cities being similar. A proper evaluation of such a claim would need to include information regarding population size, industry, etc. In addition, there needs to be more information regarding the heart of Velazquez's statements, which includes data comparing the amount of individuals committing petty and violent crimes.

The campaign statement for Velazquez involves many flaws that create an illogical conclusion. To strengthen the overall argument, it's essential to include more statistical data surrounding individuals who commit petty and violent crimes before and after the jailing of violent crimes, in addition to data comparing the cities of Barchester and Spartanburg.