临近考试，限时写作修改后，请牛人帮忙看看，谢谢！

dianan7UID: 2817144

TOPIC: ARGUMENT205 - The following appearedin a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.

"Last October the city of Belleville installed highintensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism theredeclined almost immediately. The city of Amburghas recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but therate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting isapparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install suchlighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalizethe declining neighborhoods in our city."



In the argument the author made arecommendation that intensity lighting should be installed throughout Amburg inorder to revitalize the declining neighborhood on the basis of a survey conductedin the city of Belleville LastOctober which indicated that lighting installing reduced the vandalismsignificantly. Additionally the author stated that police patrols on bicyclesin Ambrug's business district proved ineffective in the reduction of vandalismand consequently drawn a conclusion that intensity lighting is obviously themost effective way to combat crime. It is plausible at first glance of the argumentbut a close scrutiny of these evidences reveals some logical flaws.

To begin with, the author unfairly asserts thatthe effectiveness of vandalism reduction is attributable to the installing ofhigh intensity lighting in the city of Belleville since there is no evidence toprove it. It is entirely possible that with the arrival of October fewer peopleare willing to go out which can reduce the vandalism definitely. And alsoperhaps government of Bellevilletook some other measures to penalize those who commit vandalism while honorthose who reveal such bad behaviors. Without exclude other possibleexplanations regarding this immediate decline of vandalism the author cannotattribute the result to intensity lighting.

Meanwhile, in comparison to the foregoingresult in the city of Bellevillethe author presented the ineffectiveness of police patrols on bicycles in Amburg’sbusiness district and unfairly asserted that this ineffectiveness is due to thelack of lighting installing. On one hand, it equally possible that most of thevandalisms are committed in midnight when police patrols is not available. Onthe other hand, we are not informed of the number of police patrols on bicyclesas well as the road line they pass through. Perhaps too few polices are allottedto patrol some certain areas where fewer vandalisms occur all around the year.If this is the case, even police patrols on bicycles can contribute nothing tochange the rate of vandalism. Finally, the management information of Amburg’sbusiness districts is totally out of our mind and it may be possible that thegovernment did not regard the behavior of vandalism as a serous problem. Thepoorly supported statement could hardly indicate whether police patrols onbicycles function or not.

Thirdly, on the basis that the phenomena inboth of two cities is true, that is intensity lighting installing reduced thevandalism in Belleville and police patrols in Amburg proved useless, the authorcommitted a grave fallacy by ignoring the possible difference in Belleville andAmburg.
Perhaps Belleville is a smaller city with smallerpopulations that can be managed easily but in contrast Amburg is a large citywith a mix population of difference ethnics that can not be handled simply. What’smore, the weather conditions and cultural tradition should be take intoconsideration in respect to the frequency of vandalism. A nice day means morepeople are willing to take outside activities which may cause more vandalismand so as cultural ceremonies.

Finally, it is totally unfairly to claimthat intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime.The threshold problem is that what the exact definition of crime, whethervandalism is classified to a kind of crime? Even if intensity lighting iseffective in reducing vandalism it doesn’t suggest any reasonable effectivenessin combat crime. Also commonsense informs us that there must be some other moresignificant measures which can address the problem of vandalism, such as formulatethe city more reasonable, lay down some rules to punish vandalisms and enhancethe propaganda of moral behaviors.

To sum up, based on these sporadicphenomena the author can not draw any firm conclusion about the effectivenessof intensity lighting in reducing vandalism first, let alone make a convincingrecommendation to install intensity lighting in Amburg to reverse thissituation. In order to bolster the recommendation the author should confirmthat it is in fact the installing of intensity lighting which reduced thevandalism and the imitation in Amburg will consequently resolve the problem.Also more information of other measures in controlling vandalism as well asdemographic difference in two cities is needed to better evaluate the argument.