Author conclusion that improving police visibility will decrease crime rate and make citizen safer seems plausible at first glance. But if we ponder over the premise of his conclusion then we can find many flaws in it.Indeed police visibility can improve by increasing no of police men, giving more budget to police department and by increasing foot patroling but there are some conspicuous flaws in authors assumption.Firstly it is not mentioned what is the current strength of police department and by how much will it increase.Also it is not mentioned by what amount does the number of policemen per 100 or per 1000 will increase.Also policemen per square unit of area is not mentioned and by what amount will it be increased.Also it not mentioned at what ranks will the hiring will take place. It should be mentioned what percentage of top officers will increase and what percentage of lower rank officers increase.Since hiring will put financial burden on police department, it is not mentioned how much will the budget will be increased.And since this budget will come from city's treasurey, it is not mentioned what department will have to bear the cut. Is should be mentioned because if heavy cuts are made from dept. like heatlh or education then people might not feel safe with it as well. Ambiguity is also maintained by the fact that how this increased budget will be used apart from the salary of new officers.Finally it is not mentioned how will foot patroling will be encouraged among officers. There might be a case where officers do not do foot patroling at all and just do car patroling only. Also increasing officers might not ensure that every area in under check and no part of city is left. Also there is an ambiguity on how much patroling will done and how much will it increase at what time of the day.Finallyargumnet can be made more relevant by giving out the figures of percentage increase in no. of officers , % increase in budget and how will it be sepnt and also how will foot patroling be insured.Also argument can be made more cogent if author mentions how new technology can be involved to increase patroling. As the current argument stands it contains many flaws.