Hello,

Can someone please grade my essay? I felt like I was running out of time!

Thanks!

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:
Velaquez, who is seeking election as adlerman in the town of Barchester, proposed that his town should follow the city of Spartanburg who began jailing people for commiting petty crimes such as littering, shoplifting, and spraying graffiti. He claims that the new laws in Spartanburg have resulted in a 20% decrease of violent crimes such as homicide the following year. Velaquez's statement makes many assumptions that would need to be clarified in order to strengthen the argument.

First of all, Velaquez assumes that the "criminals" that commit these petty crimes are the same "criminals" who commit crimes such as homicide. Individuals who commit petty crimes don't necessarily commit much more violent crimes. The correletion between these crimes would need to be explained in order to justify the 20% drop in homicides.

Secondly, there is a natural variation in statistics such as homicide. One year is not enough time to understand the effects of the new law. In order to adequately state that this new law was the impetus for the decrease in homicides, the statistics for a longer time period must be considered.

Finally, Velaquez did not mention any community changes such as educational awareness programs. The reason for the decrease in violent crimes could be completely unrelated to the new laws.

In sum, the statement needs more supporting evidence. Factors such as the types of criminals commiting crimes, and awareness programs would strengthen the statement.

Mastevano,

I feel that the framework for a decent response is present, but your analysis needs further development in order to achieve an above average score. To ensure that you respond in sufficient depth without feeling pressed for time, I strongly suggest that you spend the first 3-5 minutes brainstorming your ideas and outlining your essay. Additionally, it can be valuable to develop (or memorize!) an essay response template prior to sitting for your Official GMAT. For an example of such a template, see my response to Frank144, who is currently listed on July 27.

YOUR RESPONSE:

1. Opening Paragraph - You did well to summarize and restate the argument at hand. However, be sure to clearly explain that, based on the information provided, there is no logical means to conclude that the implementation of this plan will reduce violent crime in Barchester.

2. Body Paragraphs

First - The assumption that the criminals committing petty crimes are the same as those committing violent crimes is not necessarily implied by the original argument. In fact, the argument seems to imply that these violent criminals "must have understood that lawlessness would no longer be tolerated," thus deterring them from committing violent acts. Perhaps a more accurate assumption is that incarceration for petty crime is a deterrent for violent crime. From there, you could discuss how this is not necessarily true and mention the type of information or statistics necessary to bolster this claim.

Second - A better "flaw" and thus a more compelling analysis than your first body paragraph, but you could still be more specific to the argument. In other words, actually state that one year's homicide statistics, especially in the absence of actual numbers, is not enough to draw causal conclusion about the reasons for the decline in violent crime. For example, there could have been 5 homicides one year and then 4 homicides the following year. This is still a 20% decline, but there could be many reasons other than the petty crime initiative to account for this decrease.

Third - A recognizable flaw, but the paragraph needs further development. Using your work as a frame, I have provided an example paragraph:

Finally, Velaquez assumes that there is no other reason for the decline in violent crime in Spartanburg other than the increased jail time for petty crime. However, it is very possible that additional changes took place in Spartanburg during Police Commissioner Draco's tenure, and that these changes, rather than new sentencing guidelines for petty criminals, influenced the violent crime rate. In order to be confident that the increased incarceration for petty criminals was the sole influence on violent crime rates, the author would have to provide a host of information about the Spartanburg community. This data could include, but is not limited to, information over crime awaress programs, community watch groups, demographic trends, and socioeconomic conditions.

Conclusion - Be more explicit. Make sure to clearly restate that the conclusion of the argument cannot be reached, and then tie this statement back to the three flaws from your body paragraphs. For an example, see Frank144 post (July 27)

Hope that helps!
-dan