“The City Council of Smithville has recommended making changes to police procedures to improve the visibility of the police force. These changes include hiring more officers, budgeting more funds for police overtime, and directing officers to patrol sig

Though it would appear that social safety and social order of Smithville can be mitigated by the new changes of police policies, the author does not make a logical case for recruiting more police officers. On its face, it might appear that the provided data lead to the author’s conclusion, but there are several unwarranted assumptions that must be addressed to establish the soundness of the author’s case. First, the argument readily assumes that increasing the visibility of the police force would decrease illegal activities. This statement is a stretch since the author does not provide any statistical evidence indicating the number of crimes that have been committed during a period of time in a particular place. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the percentage of violent crime in the last three months or the area that has the highest crime rate in Smithville. Second, the argument claims that low number of law enforcers is the cause of high crime rate. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of police officers and the crime rate. To illustrate, the main problem lies in high unemployment rate; clearly, increasing the amount of jobs would be the better solution. If the argument had provided evidence that how these procedures might affect social order in a positive way then the argument would have been a lot more convincing. Finally, the author promise the improvements would make the society more organized. Would the policy negatively affect financial budget of the city for the long-term? . Do the legislators consider the adverse effect of more patrol officers to normal life of law-abiding citizens? . Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts to support the current conclusion that implementing changes will effectively solve the problem.