My poor performance in 30 minutes ! Rate please !

[ShalomFang]

71. The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a regional newspaper.
“In response to petitions from the many farmers and rural landowners throughout our region, the legislature has spent valuable time and effort enacting severe laws to deter motorists from picking fruit off the trees, trampling through the fields, and stealing samples of foliage. But how can our local lawmakers occupy themselves with such petty vandalism when crime and violence plague the nation’s cities? The fate of apples and leaves is simply too trivial to merit their attention.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.


In this letter, the speaker claims that local lawmakers should not spend so much time and effort on deterring all those "petty" vandalism before crime and violence still plague our cities. At first glance, the speaker's opinion seems reasonable. However, with a close scrutiny, we can find that this argument suffers from several reasoning flaws, which together render the speaker's statement untenable.

First, according to the speaker's logic, the lawmakers should not think about petitions from rural area before the crime and violence in cities have been eliminated. Obviously, we cannot be so ideological like the speak because common sense tells us crime cannot be diminished completely from our cities.

Secondly, the speaker does not supply any sound evidence to support his statement. All his conclusion is based on premises supposed by himself. This is definitely a weak point in his reasoning. We do not know whether the lawmakers have put enough time and effort on deterring crime and violence in the nation's cities. It is possible that lawmakers have done enough but the effect is disappointing. Because we know that crimes are affected by a variety of factors.

In conclusion, the speaker fails to convince me that local lawmakers should put their valuable time and effort on our already-well-regarded city crime. To make the argument more convincing, rather than relying on not so proved evidence, the speaker should supply detailed information about situation on law-break of local area and in cities.

[JiminyCricket]

A few comments from a novice:
1) 2nd para, 1st sentence - "First, according to the speaker's logic, the lawmakers should not think about petitions from rural area before the crime and violence in cities have been eliminated. " - What is the flaw here? It is not clear from this sentence. You should try to list the flaw immediately so that the reader knows what point you are going to make in the rest of the paragraph.
2) 3rd para, 1st sentence - "Secondly, the speaker does not supply any sound evidence to support his statement." - I think you mean't that there isn't enough evidence to support the argument, right?
3) 4th paragraph, 1st sentence - "the speaker fails to convince me..." - You should avoid using "Me" or "I" in any of these argument essays. The "Me" or "I" can be better used in the issue essays where you are stating your opinion.