The argument claims that hiring more police ofcers and allocating higher

budget for police overtime would lower the crime rate in Smithville. Stated
this way the argument fails to metion several key factors on the basis of
which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the arguments rests on
numerous assumptions for which clear evidences have not been provided.
Hence the argument is weak, and is unconvincing and has several faws as
discussed below.
Firstly, the argument assumes that hiring more police ofcers and paying
them more for their overtime would reduce crimes. This statement is a
streach and is not substantiated in anyway. For eample , there could be a
crime over the internet, improving visibility on the streets would not reduce
cyber crime. This claim could have been considerably strengthened if the
author had clearly mentions the reasons how crime rate would drop down
with such decisions.
Secondly, the argument claims that ofcers patroling on foot rather that their
patrol cars would reduce crime. This is again a very weak claim as the
argument does not demonstrate correlation between ofcers patroling on foot
and reduction of crimes. To illustriate, in a case of armed bank robbery,
ofcers on patrol cars would be re!uired to chase them down. "n such a case
patroling ofcers on foot alone is not good enough. "f the author that provided
evidences, perhaps by way of statistics, to link ofcers patroling on foot to
reduction of crimes then the argument would have convincing.
Finally, did Smithville have appropriate number of police ofcers to monitor
the city#. $nless the argument provides clear answers to !uestions such as
these, one is left with an impression that it is more of a wishful thinking
rather than a substantive evidence.
"nconclusion, the argument is very weak and is fawed for the above
mentioned reasons, and hence it is unconvincing. "t could be greatly
strengthened if the author had provided all facts relavent to the discussion of
the argument. To access the merits of a particular decision, it is essential to
have full knowledge on the sub%ect. "n this particular case, the correlation
between hiring more police ofcers and ofcers patroling on foot, and
reduction in crimes. &ithout such information, the argument is unconvincing
and is open to debate.
Some people believe that perceived greatness of a political leader has to do
more with challenges faced by the leader while some other people believe
that it has to do more with the inherent skills and abilities of the leader. This
issue is a contraversial one, but a closely eamination reveals that a polital
leader who has faced several big challenges would be perceived has great.
'ne of the reasons could be that people like those political leaders who walks
an etra mile to improve their difcult situation rather than those who is
percieved to have inherent abilities to do so. For eample, in indian election
of ()*+, people prefered ,erendra -odi over .ahul /andhi because he had
developed lot of industries that increased the overall wealth of the people
when he was in ruling /u%rath.
0nother reason is that people believe that political power can corrupt nations.
So it is essential to have a leader who would work for the masses instead of
working on implementing policies that would %ust beni1t those on the top of
the pyramid. For eample people of 2atar perceive the current ruler to be
great as he has signi1cantly improved the lives not only of those of locals but
also of those who come into the country from looking for better life.
3erhaps the best reason is that, people would be more ready to ecept rules
laid down by those who has faced greater challenges. "n such situations, the
country is less likely to face redtapes on the road of developement and
progress.
"n conclusion, while arguments can be made on both the sides, the
advantages of those leaders who has faced great challenges far outweighs
that of a leader with inherent abilities. Hence a leader who readily faces great
challenges is perceived great.