GMAT Essays (AWA)

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

My Response:
The author of the editorial article pulished in the national news magazine suggests that in order to improve the rating system of the electronic games, an independent body or committe be formed that shall oversee the game industry and fine the companies that violates the rules- rating contents and subject matter of electronic games an appropriate rating instead of inappropriate rating. For example, an electronic game that should be given a rating 'R' ie an adult rating for violence and content is given rating of 'PG-13' ie playable by children at or above the age of 13. The author of the editorial has a valid point; however, it is not strong enough due to the following assumptions.

Firstly, the author of the editorial assumes that giving stricter rating to the electronic games will prevent the group of people not suitable for playing the game follow the rules. What if, acceptable group of people who can select and play the electronic games pass the electronic games to the group of people who are not allowed to participate in such endeavor? Then by appointing an independent body or group, the objective is just partially achieved and not completely achieved.

Secondly, the author assumes that the industry ir the shop owners, the retailers, etc. will follow the code and conduct imposed by an independent body that will levy the rating system similar to the movies rating system on the the electronic games. What if the fines of banning the comapny from not releasing a game for two years are not just enough? How much is the independent body willing to take action against the felony proprieters? Is the independent body also willing to impose similar stricter monetary as well as prisonment fines like the movie industry?

Thirdly, the author of the article assumes that there are ample number of gaming companies who facilitate the competitiveness in the gaming industry. What if there are only couple of gaming companies that produce the electronic games? As a result, if Company A is banned from producing the game for 2 years, Company B will rule for the same 2 years, thus creating a monopoly in the gaming industry.

Hence, with the right intent and proper rules and regulations, the independent body must not only prohibit the gaming company from releasing a game for 2 years, but also prohibit the retailers and several other channels that facilitate its distribution. The independent body can ask the gaming industry in general to not only follow the rating system of movie industry, but also follow the fines and other technicalities that involve the infringement of stricter monetary fines and physical imprisonment.

As a result of an independent body, the appropriate target audience will be able to watch only the suitable material for that age group. Also, the independent body can make mandatory to explicitly list the rating of the electronic games on its packaging cover. Thus, addressing the above assumptions, will make author's point about forming an independent body more stronger and sounder.

I find the firstly, secondly, thirdly format a bit boring to be honest. See if you can spice it up a bit.

In the first para - The author of the editorial has a valid point; however, it is not strong enough due to the following assumptions.

Im not sure you can use a semi colon above to be honest, both bits have to be able to stand alone as sentences.

Otherwise good job, I would say 5 for sure.