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.
RESPONSE-
The author concludes his argument by stating that the rating system for electronic games, which is similar to the rating system of movies in some aspects, is not working as it is self-regulated and mandates nominal fines. The author suggests that an independent body should oversee the gaming industry and the companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing any new games for 2 years. At first glance the argument provided by the author seems convincing but on detailed inspection the dubious assumptions and the lack of evidence by the author comes into view.
First, the author assumes that the rating system for the gaming industry is not working because it is self-regulated and because it charges nominal fines. The author fails to provide any evidence in support of these claims. It is possible that in the gaming industry there is no need for charging huge fines as the mere fact that the game has been fined is enough to discourage consumers from using that particular game. The author needs to consider the basic structure on which the rating system for electronic games functions and how it might not require all the same precautions as that of the movie industry.
Second, the author assumes that it is possible to establish an independent body for the gaming industry. The widespread nature and the lack of proper establishment of the gaming industry can make setting up an independent body a difficult task. The author overlooks the fact that the electronic gaming industry is still fairly new and that it might lack the funds and resources required for establishing and running an independent body.
Finally, the author suggests that under the new rating system companies that knowingly violate the rating system should not be allowed to release a new game for the next two years. This statement is weak as the author fails to provide us with the average time it takes a company to release a new game. For example- If on average it takes a company 3 to 3.5 years to release a new game just after it has launched a game, then this suggestion provided by the author would have no effect on stopping the defaulting companies.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing and weak. It lacks important evidence, the author not only needs to do more research on the present rating system and effects of the suggested rating system, but also needs to get rid of his flawed assumptions. The author needs to reconstruct his argument completely before any of the suggestions provided by him are followed.
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.
RESPONSE-
The author concludes his argument by stating that the rating system for electronic games, which is similar to the rating system of movies in some aspects, is not working as it is self-regulated and mandates nominal fines. The author suggests that an independent body should oversee the gaming industry and the companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing any new games for 2 years. At first glance the argument provided by the author seems convincing but on detailed inspection the dubious assumptions and the lack of evidence by the author comes into view.
First, the author assumes that the rating system for the gaming industry is not working because it is self-regulated and because it charges nominal fines. The author fails to provide any evidence in support of these claims. It is possible that in the gaming industry there is no need for charging huge fines as the mere fact that the game has been fined is enough to discourage consumers from using that particular game. The author needs to consider the basic structure on which the rating system for electronic games functions and how it might not require all the same precautions as that of the movie industry.
Second, the author assumes that it is possible to establish an independent body for the gaming industry. The widespread nature and the lack of proper establishment of the gaming industry can make setting up an independent body a difficult task. The author overlooks the fact that the electronic gaming industry is still fairly new and that it might lack the funds and resources required for establishing and running an independent body.
Finally, the author suggests that under the new rating system companies that knowingly violate the rating system should not be allowed to release a new game for the next two years. This statement is weak as the author fails to provide us with the average time it takes a company to release a new game. For example- If on average it takes a company 3 to 3.5 years to release a new game just after it has launched a game, then this suggestion provided by the author would have no effect on stopping the defaulting companies.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing and weak. It lacks important evidence, the author not only needs to do more research on the present rating system and effects of the suggested rating system, but also needs to get rid of his flawed assumptions. The author needs to reconstruct his argument completely before any of the suggestions provided by him are followed.
