The argument states that by hiring more police officers, budgeting more funds for overtime, and direct officer patrol on foot will improve the cities crime rate and safeness of citizens significantly. Though the author makes valid points, the lack of evidence to prove the change will help, are withheld from the readers. In the conclusion however the author relies on the assumption that the improvements will help the city significantly without the proof of evidence.
First the author assumes that by hiring more police officers, budgeting funds for overtime, and direct police patrol on foot will solve the problem of a high crime rate. For example, if the problem lies in the way the city is run then the problem will take more than just hiring police officers. Furthermore the author assumes that with more police officers a bigger budget and more patrolling is what the city lacks. The author make no valid points proving these solutions will be the answer.
Furthermore the author provides no evidence that supports their claims that more officers,a bigger budget, and patrolling on foot is whats needed. In its current state,the argument implies that only cities seeking to decrease their crime rate and improve their citizens safeness will use the solutions specified. If this is the only way to significantly improve that state of the city's police force then these changes could take a while to be instilled.
Additionally the conclusion that is stated requires evidence supporting that all cities who are identified as having a high crime rate will instill hiring more officers,budgeting more funds, and direct patrolling on foot will make their police force operate better.
The statement that hiring more officers will significantly lower crime rates would be strengthened by providing evidence that the police officers working and being hired are enforcing their training as taught and evidence that hiring more police officers is effective in the field. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document