The premise of the letter implies that rural crime is insignificant. The author appears to be implying that the acts of these trespassers somehow detract from the well-being of cities, when in fact they are just as damaging to both; however, the author chooses to ignore the crimes of urban dwellers. Cities are plagued by violent and violent crime, as well as theft and vandalism. These crimes are committed by the same people who pick apples and steal leaves, and by the same people who commit those crimes. In the cities, they are victims of other crimes. However, apples and leaves are a commodity that farmers need to make a profit. Therefore, they target these crops, since they cannot afford to lose them. The loss of these crops affects farmers’ livelihoods. This trickles down to the workers in the orchards, who rely on their wages to support their families. The city dwellers who destroy crops and steal fruit are hurting themselves as well. They deprive themselves of the food they need, and, by damaging the crops, they are causing farmers additional losses

The author offers that rural residents’ concerns are ‘trivial’ and that ‘crime and violence plague the nation’s cities.’ However, theft, vandalism, and violent crime are serious issues that plague both the rural and urban populations. The author does not acknowledge that these crimes occur in both rural and urban areas, nor does he acknowledge that they rarely occur in isolation. Theft and vandalism often occur in tandem with violent crime, and violent crime often occurs with theft and vandalism. Since cities have a higher population density, they are also more likely to experience these crimes. Moreover, urban dwellers are more likely to be victims of these crimes. The losses suffered by farmers, however, are a direct result of the crimes that are committed by urban dwellers. The farmers could be prevented from losing crops by addressing the problem of urban crime, but the author dismisses this possibility. Perhaps his concern is with the burden on rural law enforcement, since he implies that rural law enforcement has its hands full with petty crimes. Perhaps the author is unaware of the role that urban law enforcement plays in preventing urban crime. Law enforcement officers in metropolitan areas use a variety of techniques, such as surveillance cameras, electronic monitoring, and undercover work, to identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals. Just as important, they and other law enforcement officers make communities safer by infiltrating criminal organizations and preventing violent incidents from occurring. Rural law enforcement, on the other hand, is often understaffed and underfunded, and does not have the resources to combat urban crime. Although these issues affect rural areas, the author does not acknowledge them, choosing to place the blame for urban crime squarely on the shoulders of rural residents

After he dismisses the concerns expressed by rural residents, the author presents his argument by asserting that the fate of apples and leaves is ‘too trivial to merit their attention.’ This conclusion has dubious logic. The fate of the crops grown by individual farmers, as well as the livelihood of the workers who harvest them, is of great concern to farmers. Losing crops because of the actions of a few fruit thieves and leaf pickers is serious business, and depriving farmers of the fruits of their labors is irresponsible. If the author had addressed the concerns of the farmers, he might have expressed greater sympathy for their plight and acknowledged the serious nature of their plight. Also, the author might have considered the fact that the fate of apples and leaves are too trivial to merit the attention of rural lawmakers, but not for urban lawmakers. Fruits and leaves might not affect urban residents’ daily lives in the same way as crops do for farmers, but urban residents still rely on these items to sustain themselves. Therefore, the fate of these items also deserves their attention

The author’s argument has several flaws. First, he suggests that rural residents are ‘trivializing’ the crimes committed by urban residents. In reality, the crimes committed in both rural and urban areas are serious. Second, he implies that crimes that occur in cities are trivial because they affect only a small number of individuals. In fact, the losses suffered by farmers affect the entire community, and these losses are a direct result of the urban criminal activity. Third, he implies that the theft of apples and the leaves they drop are trivial because they are only worth a few cents to farmers. However, the losses to the farmers are more substantial than the few cents that apple pickers and leaf pickers can reap from the sale of the stolen produce. Finally, he dismisses the concerns expressed by rural residents as ‘trivial.’ This statement suggests that they are simply whining and trying to live off the government. However, their concern is reasonable, since rural farms depend on the labor of farmers, and the loss of crops by fruit thieves and leaf pickers can make it difficult for the farmers to earn a living. Rural lawmakers’ failure to address the concerns expressed by the farmers is not trivial; it is irresponsible.