ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:
"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not working because it is self regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Similar to the movie rating system, the electronic game industry also has a rating system, which tells consumers whether the subject matter and content is appropriate. The editor of the national news magazine is of the opinion that this rating system is not working as it is self regulated and the fines for violations are too nominal. He further concludes that an independent body should regulate the game industry and that violater should be banned for a period of 2 years from releasing a new game. In my opinion this conclusion is flawed for the following reasons.
First of all, the editor has not provided any evidence to show that the current rating system is not working. He just states that it is not working as it is self regulated and the fines are nominal. What if, despite all these factors, the rating system still works. The game writers might be more concerned about their reputation and thus even with low fines would not want to misrepresent the rating of a game.
People do not buy computer games as frequently as they go to the movies. While a person might watch a movie each week, he might buy at max 10 game titles in an entire year. Thus it might be assumed that a person does enough research before buying a game title to leave no benefit for the game developer to misrepresent the ratings.
In addition, even if we agree that there is a problem of misrepresentation of game ratings, the proposed solutions might not have as worthwhile an effect as expected by the editor. What if game developers release only 1 title every 2 years? Thus the 2 year ban would not have any effect on them.
Thus, in conclusion, i would like to say that in present form the above arguement lacks merit. The editors conclusion would be more compelling if enough evidence is provided that game developers actually misrepresent ratings or they have an incentive to misrepresent the ratings. The editor also would have to furnish evidences on the frequency in which game developers bring out new games to conclude whether the 2 years ban, as proposed, would have any effect.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:
"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not working because it is self regulated and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. As a result an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
Similar to the movie rating system, the electronic game industry also has a rating system, which tells consumers whether the subject matter and content is appropriate. The editor of the national news magazine is of the opinion that this rating system is not working as it is self regulated and the fines for violations are too nominal. He further concludes that an independent body should regulate the game industry and that violater should be banned for a period of 2 years from releasing a new game. In my opinion this conclusion is flawed for the following reasons.
First of all, the editor has not provided any evidence to show that the current rating system is not working. He just states that it is not working as it is self regulated and the fines are nominal. What if, despite all these factors, the rating system still works. The game writers might be more concerned about their reputation and thus even with low fines would not want to misrepresent the rating of a game.
People do not buy computer games as frequently as they go to the movies. While a person might watch a movie each week, he might buy at max 10 game titles in an entire year. Thus it might be assumed that a person does enough research before buying a game title to leave no benefit for the game developer to misrepresent the ratings.
In addition, even if we agree that there is a problem of misrepresentation of game ratings, the proposed solutions might not have as worthwhile an effect as expected by the editor. What if game developers release only 1 title every 2 years? Thus the 2 year ban would not have any effect on them.
Thus, in conclusion, i would like to say that in present form the above arguement lacks merit. The editors conclusion would be more compelling if enough evidence is provided that game developers actually misrepresent ratings or they have an incentive to misrepresent the ratings. The editor also would have to furnish evidences on the frequency in which game developers bring out new games to conclude whether the 2 years ban, as proposed, would have any effect.
