The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce."Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of

The author of the argument states that in order to to effectively reduce crime rates in the city of Amburg, high-intensity lighting should be installed. This recommendations is not completely cogent from a logical standpoint as it fails to address three specific pieces of evidence to convincingly develop a sound conclusion.

First, the speaker states that vandalism is reduced in the city of Belleville after the installation of the high-intensity lighting. From this, the author cannot conclude that this innovation will reduce all sorts of crime. Other crimes could include murder, rape, and embezzlement. Nowhere in the argument does it state that these crimes are also seeing declining rates of occurrence. Therefore, it is unintelligible to conclude that just because vandalism reduces, all other crimes experience a decrease. The author can strengthen the argument by stating that the lighting will specifically aid to prevent high rates of vandalism. Then, it is justified that there is a possibility that the installation of high-intensity lighting in Amburg will prevent a similar misdemeanor.

Second, the argument states that the high-intensity lighting is installed in the central business district of Belleville. The speaker then concludes that the lighting should be installed all throughout Amburg. This may not be necessary because there may be higher rates of vandalism confined to the central business district. There is an equivocal comparison between the two cities as the author s first referring to the central business district of Belleville, but then suggests that the lighting be incorporated all over the city of Amburg. The argument could be fortified if the author includes evidence that there are high rates of crime all throughout the city of Amburg, and not just in certain areas or neighborhoods.

Finally, it is stated that police patrol on bicycles was not effective in preventing vandalism in Amburg. Because of this inefficacious procedure, it cannot be concluded that the high-intensity lighting will work either. Amburg is a different city from Belleville, probably with different rates of crime. In addition, the police patrol method was not tested in Belleville, so it is unknown if that method would have worked first in that city too. Therefore, the author cannot conclude that high-intensity lighting will suddenly be effective in preventing vandalism, especially if police patrol proved to be unsuccessful. The author could strengthen the argument's conclusion by stating that there was an initial attempt to reduce vandalism with police patrol in Belleville, which then proved ineffective. In contrast, the second method of installing high-intensity lighting got the job done.

It is evident that from these missing pieces of evidence that the argument is not reasonably coherent. The author's lack of mention of vandalism versus other types of crimes, the differences between the two cities, and the discrepancy in incorporating police patrol in just one city highlights the flaws associated with this illogically formulated argument.