Crime rate in urban areas
Prompt: Crime rate, in most countries, is often higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Why do you think that is? What can be done to reduce crime rate? Any advice or feedback would be appreciated.
In recent decades, escalating crime rate in many places, especially in metropolitan areas, has been receiving a great deal of media attention, causing public controversy. Although there are many reasons leading to the increase of criminals in these areas compared with the rural ones, some plausible solutions are there to tackle this headache-provoking problem.
Of many main causes of crime in urbanized areas, poverty and addiction are basically what to blame. First, it has long been asserted that crime is an evitable product of poverty. In fact, in order to make ends meet under tremendous pressure of urban markets, many people will, by hook or by crook, do whatever it takes to earn their living even committing crimes. Second, big cities are often full of people who are addicted to either alcohol or drugs. When these people are on their way to chase high feelings, the likelihood of them committing crimes, such as robbery or even murder, is very high, and virtually nothing could hold their steps.
However, by adopting cutting-edge technologies and building DNA databases, the governments could reduce substantially crime rate in urban areas. First, deterrent technologies are proven effective in decreasing urban thefts. For example, robbery in California has become less severe after the local authority installed more police cameras throughout the state. In addition, DNA databases also do the governments a great favor in combating criminals in metropolitan areas. Statistically speaking, by building labs which can add DNA of offenders, Malaysian governments are able to find criminals faster and more cost-efficiently than they did in the past.
In conclusion, although there are many reasons that result in higher crime rate in urban areas than in the countryside, governments can invest in state-of the-art technologies to ultimately maintain security in big cities.
Le, your opening paragraph is good but is hindered by your lack of proper sentence development. You have two run-on sentences, as indicated by your constant use of a comma to separate your discussion ideas, when you should have used periods at the end of every discussion topic change in order to meet the minimum 3 sentence requirement. Additionally, you are supposed to present a 5 paragraph essay for the Task 2 discussion. These are the reasons why, even though you present some pretty good ideas in this essay, you will most likely not get an impressive passing score in an actual setting.
Your opening paragraph is exaggerated. It is important for you to understand that the TA section of the scores are based upon the method by which you present your opening paraphrase. Therefore, your representation of the original discussion must be accurate and without additional information that is not included in the original prompt. In this instance, you said that the problem is a "headache proving" one. That is never implied in the original prompt and therefore, should not be present in your paraphrase. You also indicated that this problem is causing a "controversy" when what is presented in the essay is a simple discussion and not a controversial presentation. Based upon these two exaggerations, you can bet that you will lose major points in the prompt paraphrase section. Accuracy is important because this indicates that you totally understood the original presentation and that you are capable of accurately restating the facts as delivered to you in order to avoid confusion or exaggeration.
Now, you have 3 body paragraphs with which to present your discussion of facts. Each paragraph is allotted only one topic for presentation in a maximum of 5 paragraphs. This is so that you can fully explain your reasons in a manner that will not confuse the reader or leave the presentation of your ideas under developed. So, instead of trying to tackle 2 topics in one paragraph like you did now, you should have used 2 paragraphs for each topic and then used the 3 paragraph to present a solution that could collectively be applied to both situations as you stated them. Deterrent devices would have been the way to go instead of adding the DNA explanation which was not really effective in presentation and lessened the impact of your deterrent discussion as well.
Your concluding paragraph is nothing but a long run-on sentence again. That means, you failed to properly represent the summarized discussion points of your essay. For every error that you made in your presentation and discussion development, you have lost major points in the overall scoring for the essay. It would be a stretch for this essay to gain an acceptable passing score based on the mistakes you made within the 4 criteria for scoring.