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:
Although this argument may be logically sound, it provides no real context or strong examples in order to substantiate the conclusion. It provides no additional information to state that an independent body should regulate the game industry. It also does not state the challenges of setting up an independent agency to regulate the gaming system. Also, it assumes that the gaming system is not working because of self regulation, however there can be several other factors that contribute to this. In addition, it states an arbitrary number of 2 years to prohibit a company from releasing a game, but provides no information if that will decrease violations of the rating system. For all of these reasons, this argument is flawed.
First of all, the argument states that an independent body should oversee the game industry because self regulation is not working. However, it provides no additional information for an independent body to regulate the game industry. Why can't the government regulate the game industry? In addition, it does not acknowledge that there are significant costs associated with an independent agency regulating the game industry. What if the costs are too great to allow this independent agency to regulate the game industy? The argument needs to provide additional information in order to convince the reader that this is the best route.
In addition, this argument states that the electronic game rating system is not working because it is self regulated and fine for violating the rating system are nominal. The argument assumes that the fines are the reason that the rating system is not working. However, there can be several other factors which contributes to this. For example, what if the funds to spearhead the game rating system are lacking or the self regulated system is understaffed? These may be the reasons that the rating system is not working, not the sole fact that it is self regulated.
Finally, this argument states that companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. However, it provides no backing that this will decrease the number of companies that violate the rating system. The companies can violate the rating system right after the two years they are on probation.
In conclusion, this argument is not well reasoned. It does not mention any challenges of setting up an independent agency to regulate the gaming system. It also assumes that the gaming system is not working because of self regulation, however it does not acknowledge other factors that may contribute to this. In addition, it states that the nominal fees are the reason that the rating system is not working, however the fees may not be the only reason. It states that a company should be prohibted for 2 years from releasing a game, but provides no information if this will decrease violations of the rating system. For all the reasons I have discussed above, this argument is not sound.
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:
Although this argument may be logically sound, it provides no real context or strong examples in order to substantiate the conclusion. It provides no additional information to state that an independent body should regulate the game industry. It also does not state the challenges of setting up an independent agency to regulate the gaming system. Also, it assumes that the gaming system is not working because of self regulation, however there can be several other factors that contribute to this. In addition, it states an arbitrary number of 2 years to prohibit a company from releasing a game, but provides no information if that will decrease violations of the rating system. For all of these reasons, this argument is flawed.
First of all, the argument states that an independent body should oversee the game industry because self regulation is not working. However, it provides no additional information for an independent body to regulate the game industry. Why can't the government regulate the game industry? In addition, it does not acknowledge that there are significant costs associated with an independent agency regulating the game industry. What if the costs are too great to allow this independent agency to regulate the game industy? The argument needs to provide additional information in order to convince the reader that this is the best route.
In addition, this argument states that the electronic game rating system is not working because it is self regulated and fine for violating the rating system are nominal. The argument assumes that the fines are the reason that the rating system is not working. However, there can be several other factors which contributes to this. For example, what if the funds to spearhead the game rating system are lacking or the self regulated system is understaffed? These may be the reasons that the rating system is not working, not the sole fact that it is self regulated.
Finally, this argument states that companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. However, it provides no backing that this will decrease the number of companies that violate the rating system. The companies can violate the rating system right after the two years they are on probation.
In conclusion, this argument is not well reasoned. It does not mention any challenges of setting up an independent agency to regulate the gaming system. It also assumes that the gaming system is not working because of self regulation, however it does not acknowledge other factors that may contribute to this. In addition, it states that the nominal fees are the reason that the rating system is not working, however the fees may not be the only reason. It states that a company should be prohibted for 2 years from releasing a game, but provides no information if this will decrease violations of the rating system. For all the reasons I have discussed above, this argument is not sound.
