Levitt And Dubcott's Freakonomics Summary
Levitt and Dubner, in chapter 4 of their book “Freakonomics”: "Where Have All the Criminals Gone?" give a description of several interconnections in the midst of different instances. The two writers affirm that in 1988 and 1994, there was a reduction in the rates of crimes.
The duo validates their argument by pointing at how the candid laws that initially permitted abortion and those that later followed that prohibited it impacted crime rates in the US either negatively or positively. In this work, I have applied Wolcott's "Steps for Better Thinking" for providing answers for the reason behind the experienced crime rate reduction.
The existing correlation linking the 1996 Romanian abortion ban to its legalization era in the United States is …show more content…
Here, criminal activity reduction is given higher priority to abortion because of its widespread effect on the human race. Conversely, abortion too has widespread implications but is a personal choice. The benefits of prioritizing crime rates are therefore far much more than abortion. However, it is important to consider that a problem does not just have one solution.
Envisioning is enables one to have an imaginary mind picture of future events that would occur as a result of the made choice or decision. Choosing abortion may be effective in reducing crime rates, but how about the side effects that is likely to follow this decision? Not forgetting the psychological problems; the knowledge that one is a mother of a dead baby. Conclusion
The two authors adequately handled the argument of an informal correlation between abortion and criminal activities. Nevertheless, it is so unreasonable to rate abortion as a way of preventing criminal activity. Through critical and creative thinking, one can analyze the prevailing situations and in order of urgency, make a rational decision. The Romanian leader needed to have used critical analysis to know that an increase in population would consequently lead to lower living standards for
The duo validates their argument by pointing at how the candid laws that initially permitted abortion and those that later followed that prohibited it impacted crime rates in the US either negatively or positively. In this work, I have applied Wolcott's "Steps for Better Thinking" for providing answers for the reason behind the experienced crime rate reduction.
The existing correlation linking the 1996 Romanian abortion ban to its legalization era in the United States is …show more content…
Here, criminal activity reduction is given higher priority to abortion because of its widespread effect on the human race. Conversely, abortion too has widespread implications but is a personal choice. The benefits of prioritizing crime rates are therefore far much more than abortion. However, it is important to consider that a problem does not just have one solution.
Envisioning is enables one to have an imaginary mind picture of future events that would occur as a result of the made choice or decision. Choosing abortion may be effective in reducing crime rates, but how about the side effects that is likely to follow this decision? Not forgetting the psychological problems; the knowledge that one is a mother of a dead baby. Conclusion
The two authors adequately handled the argument of an informal correlation between abortion and criminal activities. Nevertheless, it is so unreasonable to rate abortion as a way of preventing criminal activity. Through critical and creative thinking, one can analyze the prevailing situations and in order of urgency, make a rational decision. The Romanian leader needed to have used critical analysis to know that an increase in population would consequently lead to lower living standards for