“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.In this article, the author asserts that Barchester should follow the practice of Spartanburg, jailing petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting and spraying graffiti. It believes it will help reduce violent crimes, given the experience in Spartanburg. This argument is unsound and unconvincing as the author lacks of sufficient evidences and solid assumptions to support his claims.
First, the assumption that Barchester and Spartanburg will yield the same result in reducing violent crimes is unwarranted. The two cities have different population and diversity of people; hence, simply assuming the action will yield the same result doesn't convince readers.
Second, the author doesn't provide the reason why jailing petty crimes contributes to drop in violent crimes. These two types of crimes are very different and they are properly committed by different type of people. Teenagers are more likely to commit petty crimes, while adults with criminal records are more likely to crime serious crime like homicide. The author fails to show the connection how these two types of crimes connect with one another.
Third, the author neglects to take other factors into account that could contribute to the drop in violent crimes. There could be other reasons that have more direct relationship to the outcome, such as increased budget for police spending, improved education system, etc. The author has to show more evidences to explain why jailing petty crimes are the key drivers over other options in order to be more persuasive.
For the reasons mentioned above, the argument from the author is not persuasive. The argument will be stronger if one provides more supports to back up how jailing crimes causes drop in violent crimes and explain what's the rationale behind the projection that Barchester and Spartanburg will result in the same outcome.