AWA from MGMAT - CAT 6 (Please Comment)

[anup.shesh]

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 mentions that the city of Spartanburg saw a 20% drop in violent crimes. The reason cited is that under Police Commissioner Draco, Spartanburg began jailing people for committing petty crimes and hence the criminals must have understood that lawlessness would not be tolerated. With this reasoning the author concludes that the town of Barchester should learn from Commissioner Draco's success and that the town should begin a large-scale crackdown on petty crime. But the argument is unconvincing for it makes various questionable assumptions.

First, the argument assumes that the 20% decrease in the crimes was solely because of the leadership of Commissioner Draco. The argument rules out other important factors that might have been in play for this result. For example, it is very possible that the Commissioner was just following the orders from the Mayor of the city and that the commissioner, by himself, never took such actions to control crime. Other possibility is that the economic opportunities for people of Spartanburg might have also improved during the same period and thus, might have reduced the tendency of previous criminals to commit any crimes.

Second, even if we take the above assumption for granted, we need to make other assumption for argument to hold true. The Commissioner Dracon's success in Spartanburg to control the violent crimes does not automatically mean that actions similar to his would be successful in the town of Barchester. The social setting in Barchester might be totally different from that in Spartanburg. Barchester might have worse economic conditions than Spartanburg to help similar actions to hold effective. So it is very probable that actions similar to Dracon's actions in Spartanburg might not hold as effective in Barchester as in Spartanburg.

In conclusion, the argument makes questionable assumptions and neglects possibilities of other factors to play role in success of Commissioner Dracon. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to show evidence that it was solely Commissioner Dracon's position that brought crimes rates down by 20%. And the evidence showing similarity in Spartanburg and Barchester is also required to safely assume that measures taken similar to that taken in Spartanburg will hold true for Barchester also.

[mahakm112]

could you please evaluate my reasonng?

The argument fails to mention several key factors,on the basis of which it could be evaluated.It states that jailing criminals for petty crimes has reduced the percentage of voilent crimes in Santanburg.It assumes that because something was applicable in one town should be followed in another town as well.The argument is based on alot of assumptions regarding the situation.

Firstly,The statement mentions the reduction in percentage.The argument will benefit if actuall number was given.For example, if earlier no.of homicides were 2000 then drop in 20% will only mean that 400 less homicides.while if in all total homicide wwere 100 then 20% drop mmeans 20 less homicides.So,the example is open to interpretation by the reader.

Furthermore,If people are jailed for petty crimes such as shoplifting,littering then how many people are jailed in a month and what is their sentence is also not mentioned.If the sentence for petty crimes is 2-5 days then it would not create much difference to regular deffaulters.

Moreover,The capacity of jails is also not compared along with the police force required to monitor people commiting petty crimes.It could be that Spartanburg has extra police force to maintain such law while Barchester does not have such large police force.

In addition,argument fails to consider other methods for reducing voilent crimes that could be more usefull than commisioner Draco's method of reducing voilent crimes.

In conclusion,The argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing for above mentioned reasons. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.