Test in one week, any point of view can change a lot of things (and can even change my life).
Thanks for every minute of your time to read my essay.
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.
My response:
The argument claims that the current rating system for electronic games is not appropriate because it doesn't prevent companies from violating it. Therefore the argument asks for the creation of an independent body that would prohibit companies violating the rating system from releasing a game for two years.
Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Moreover, the conclusion is too extreme and relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence.
First, the argument readily assumes that the electornic game rating system is not working because the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. This can be true if consumers ignore anything about companies fined. However, consumers are often informed about the names of these companies. This can be very harmfull to these companies. Clearly, the arguments doesn't mention the bad effect on the brand of a company that is fined because of violating the electronic rating system. To illustrate, when some years ago, Sony violated the rating system of the famous game GPA version 2. As a result the sales of this version were too much less than those of the first version of the same game.
Second, the argument claims that prohibiting the companies that knowingly violate the rating system from releasing a gam for two years is a good solution to protect the game industry. This is again a weak claim as two years are clearly not enough to change electronic game companies policy. In fact, as it is the case for movies industry, creating one game can take more than two years. Therefore, a company prohibited from releasing a game for twe years is not really affected as it can continue working on its new games during these two years, and then to release them once the prohibition is over.
If the argument had given more restrictive solutions to prohibit companies from violating the game rating system, then the argument could have been more convincing.
Finally, what if the electronic game rating system was decided by an independent insitution? Also, are consumers well informed enough about the significance of the electronic games rating? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the feeling that the argument is more of a wishfull thinking rather a substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentionned above and is therefore unconvincing. The argument could be strengthened if it suggests more effective ways to prohibit companies from violating the electronic game rating system. Moreover, the argument could be strengthened if it gives more evidence against the currect method of rating the electronic games.
Thanks for every minute of your time to read my essay.
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.
My response:
The argument claims that the current rating system for electronic games is not appropriate because it doesn't prevent companies from violating it. Therefore the argument asks for the creation of an independent body that would prohibit companies violating the rating system from releasing a game for two years.
Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Moreover, the conclusion is too extreme and relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence.
First, the argument readily assumes that the electornic game rating system is not working because the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. This can be true if consumers ignore anything about companies fined. However, consumers are often informed about the names of these companies. This can be very harmfull to these companies. Clearly, the arguments doesn't mention the bad effect on the brand of a company that is fined because of violating the electronic rating system. To illustrate, when some years ago, Sony violated the rating system of the famous game GPA version 2. As a result the sales of this version were too much less than those of the first version of the same game.
Second, the argument claims that prohibiting the companies that knowingly violate the rating system from releasing a gam for two years is a good solution to protect the game industry. This is again a weak claim as two years are clearly not enough to change electronic game companies policy. In fact, as it is the case for movies industry, creating one game can take more than two years. Therefore, a company prohibited from releasing a game for twe years is not really affected as it can continue working on its new games during these two years, and then to release them once the prohibition is over.
If the argument had given more restrictive solutions to prohibit companies from violating the game rating system, then the argument could have been more convincing.
Finally, what if the electronic game rating system was decided by an independent insitution? Also, are consumers well informed enough about the significance of the electronic games rating? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the feeling that the argument is more of a wishfull thinking rather a substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentionned above and is therefore unconvincing. The argument could be strengthened if it suggests more effective ways to prohibit companies from violating the electronic game rating system. Moreover, the argument could be strengthened if it gives more evidence against the currect method of rating the electronic games.
