In the preceding statements the author claims that rating system for electronic games is not working because it is self regulated and the fines for violating it are nominal. The argument may well have merit, but it does not have substantial premises and proven assumptions to indicate its legitimacy.

The primary reason is the vagueness of the word "self regulated". Author fails to provide details about the current regulators of the system who fine the company in case of violations.Moreover, the working of this new regulatory body suggested by author is not explained to decide on the soundness of conclusion which states that it will curb the problem of violations, what if the independent regulatory body doesn't have enough incentives to work fairly or consists of people who have worked in the industry and thus are biased towards the companies.

In addition, it is assumed that gaming industry is aware of the categories and the criteria of the rating system even though there is no regulating body as such. Due to which the buckets may not be well defined. The reference to any existence of such documentation should be referred here.

To provide support to his conclusion of fining companies which violate the rating knowingly the author should explain the basis for determining whether the act was intentional or not. The statement does not clarify the decision making process of the regulators either.

In sum, the author's argument is illogical and is solely based on unsubstantiated premises and illegitimate explications. As he fails to acknowledge the crucial aspects related to the rating system, the regulatory body and decision making process of this regulatory body. If the author corrects these flaws in his argument he will be able to convince his audience.