Letter to the editor: According to last Thursday’s editorial, someone who commits a burglary runs almost no risk of being caught. ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████
The letter writer concludes that many burglars will eventually be caught, contrary to an editorial that says burglars are almost never caught. In support, the letter writer cites police statistics that say a significant majority of those who commit crimes are caught—and of course, all burglars commit crimes.
The issue is that burglars may not be representative of criminals as a whole in this regard. In other words, just because a majority of criminals in general are caught, that doesn't mean a majority of burglars specifically are caught. The letter writer improperly treats a property of the whole (criminals) as being a property of part of that whole (burglars).
The claim that some burglars ████ ███████████ ██████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ █████████
It is evidence █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████████
The letter writer's conclusion is that many burglars will eventually be caught. Saying that some burglars will escape doesn't support that claim—it doesn't make the conclusion any more likely to be true. The supporting evidence is just police statistics and the fact that all burglars are criminals.
It is the ██████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████
The letter writer doesn't offer any evidence to support the claim that some burglars will escape, just states it as a fact. This claim is offered as a concession, not as part of the letter writer's point.
It provides an ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████
The letter writer doesn't give any specific examples of people who have committed burglaries and then been caught. Even if the letter writer did use examples, a general hypothetical claim like this wouldn't make the cut.
It restates the ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████████
The letter writer aims to counter the editorial's position that extremely few burglars will be caught. Saying that "some" burglars will escape isn't a restatement of that position—it's much weaker. Instead, this is a concession that's still consistent with denying the editorial.
It concedes a █████ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████████
Saying that some burglars will escape is a concession: the letter writer is trying to establish a middle ground with the editorial, that claims that almost all burglars will escape. But this concession is still consistent with the letter writer's conclusion that most burglars will be caught.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic