I guess it's a bit last moment this whole thing, but I decided to write at least one essay before I sit my exam tomorrow, so there we go! Any comments are more than welcome (and desirable) THAAAAAAKS!

"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."

The argument claims that the existing rating system for electronic games is not working, because it is self regulated and violation fees are nominal. While this statement does have some point, there are several flaws, which weaken its validity. The argument fails to support its position that self regulated game rating systems are not working, explain how violation fines that are nominal cause ineffectiveness of the rating system, and provide evidence on why would an independent body do a better job in rating electronic games than a self regulated one would do.

First, the argument states that if the electronic games rating system is self regulated then it is of no good value. The statement fails to prove the correlation between the types of regulation of rating systems and the quality of work they provide. Instead, a comparison to the movie rating system is made, however, no further details or statistical data on the performance of this rating system is given. The argument falsely makes an assumption without providing any evidence to support it. If more information on the matter was provided, the argument would be much more convincing.

Second, the statement also claims that another reason for the inefficiency of the rating system is the nominal violation fines that are in operation. How are violation fines related to the system's performance does not become apparent. Moreover, the argument implies that these fines do not correspond the true value of the violations, however this claim is not supported by any facts. For example, a scale determining the different levels of violation and their corresponding fine amounts could have been provided, and thus help better explain why the rating system is not working.

Finally, the argument proposes that an independent body should take over the control of the games rating system, however this does not ensure better performance, or if it does, it does not become evident from the statement. A specialist in the area's opinion on the matter could have been beneficial in supporting this claim, yet has not been presented.

In summary, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore is implausible. Without any further evidence and information it remains unsupported and open to debate.