Writing Feedback /
Improved visibility of police force; GRE argument essay [3]
"The city council of Smithville has instituted change to police procedures to improve the visibility of police force. These changes require that the town hire more police officers, budget more funds for police overtime, and direct officers to patrol significantly more often on foot rather than from their patrol cars. These improvements in visibility will significantly lower the crime rate in Smithville and make its citizens feel safer"The conclusion that the improvement of police procedures to increase the visibility of police force will lower the crime rate and make its citizens feel safer is based on inadequate evidence. The writer has a gap in his logic where he supposes that hiring more police officers, budget more funds for over time, and direct officers more often on foot rather than from their patrol cars.
First evidence used to persuade readers is seems to be logically at the first glace, but with paying more attention, it'll look illogically. Hiring more officers may be logical if the current officers are not covering the whole area or there is a lack of reaching for help on short time when needed, but there is no such information mentioned about that issue. It is better to say that the city will check the places that need more officers' appearance and hire new officers as needed. That can be more logical to the reader to accept it.
Second evidence used is totally "cause and effect" flaw. If the city will hire new officers, why it is necessary to pay money for over time? It looks insensible and can stop the reader from continuing the memo. It is better to say that the city will evaluate the necessary budget for these improvements, and it will be stronger if he mentioned extra details to persuade readers.
Third, directing officers to be on their foot rather than from their patrol cars is very illogically. Officers on their foot will decrease their abilities to move from place to another quickly as needed. Second, it is more dangerous for their lives to keep on their foot for a long time, especially in the dark and quiet areas. It is better not to be mention as a way to persuade readers.
In conclusion, the argument has many flaws at presenting the evidences to persuade readers to accept the new improvement procedures. First, hiring new officers may be is not the right solution to make citizens feel safer. Second, funding more budgets is not logically, as it is a sign of bad management. Finally, the third evidence used is not offering safety to the officers and that is unacceptable. As a result, the argument is too weak to be logically sound.
