"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."

Start:

In preceding statement, the author claims that the current electronic game rating system is inefficient , however the similar movie rating system, which provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate, is working as expected. The author finally concludes that because the electronic game rating system is self regulated and fines for violating the rating system are nominal, therefore, 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, Though this claim may well have some merits, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidences that author offers, we can not accept his argument as valid.

Primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises, the author presents that the self regulated electronic games rating system and nominal fines for violating the rating system are root cause of the issue; However, he fails to present any evidence why similar rating system for movies is working fine. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack of legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author wrongly assumes that self-regulation and absence of stiff penalty in existing electronic game rating system is main cause of the issue, thereby making and independent body and making the fine stiffer when a company violates the rating system. The author did not present any evidence to support his conclusion that whether independent body of rating system has worked and therefore can be replicated in the case of electronic game rating system. The author further assumes that the fine for the violation, the two year ban from releasing the game is sufficient to deter the companies to violate the rating system.

While the author does have several key issue in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not so say that entire argument is without base. To strengthen the argument, the author could have provided evidence that self regulation is need for the electronic games rating system and by providing examples that the similar self regulated system has worked well for many others. The author could explicate that the movies system and game rating system are intrinsically different. Success of failure of one system can not be treated same for both. The author could present certain evident to support his proposed 2 year prohibition from releasing games for the company which violate the rating system. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his or her readers' mind of the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument and fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.