-
jekyll12345
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:42 am
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author says that the rating sytem used in the gaming industry is similar to that of a movie rating system- a quick reference for consumers which enables them to mark the content as appropriate. And, this system ,presently being self-regulated isn't effective as people tend to violate the rating system as the fines are nominal.Thus, he claims that there should be an independent body which will monitor the rating of electronic games in the games industry and prevent violation of the rating system, by prohibiting the defaulters from releasing a game for two years.
Though his claim may have merit, but the author has presented a poorly reasoned argumnet, based on questionable premises and assumptions, and thus , the argument in its current state,cannot be accepted as a valid argument.
The primary issue is with the premise, which is the basis of the author's argument. The author says that the rating sytem used for games is similar to that used for rating movies, however, he fails to elaborate on the reference system that is being discussed. How does the reference system help in deciding whether the content is appropriate or not? Who is the target audience, who are the consumers- from which age group- are they wise enough to decide for themselves, just by reading a reference guide?Secondly, he states that the current rating system is not working because it is self-regulated, and people continue to violate it as the fines are nominal. What is not clear is what are they violating, why they are violating -the rules how to rate a game as appropriate?How does it benefit them in the long run to violate the rules, that they are willing to pay the fine? These premises do not imply that an independent body will be the soltuion to avoid violation of the rating system- how will that independent body filter the defaulters, who will be the part of the independent body,will there be representation from the gaming industry as well, some members may become a part of it for their own vested interests. What about the additional cost- who will bear the cost for forming a new regulatory body?
Thus, the author's premise - basis for his argument, lacks legitimate evidentiary support and hence render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition to the premise, the author has made several assumptions that remain unproven, throughout the course of his argument. He assumes that the consumers are rationale, and wise enough to decide for themselves whether the game content is appropriate or not. also, an independent body will not constitute of memebers who will try and promote their own vested interests.By making these assumptions, the author has weakened his argument.
While the author's argument does have issues with the premises and the assumptions, it is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Had the author told us the that the consumers are wise enough to be left at their own discretions, and the the independent body will be able to find out the defaulters and it will indeed stop the violation of the current rating system, a scenario where this was successfully implemented and tested and yielded result, would have made the argument more powerful and convincing.
Thus, in its present state without any substantiated premises and assumptions, the author's argument is not persuasive.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author says that the rating sytem used in the gaming industry is similar to that of a movie rating system- a quick reference for consumers which enables them to mark the content as appropriate. And, this system ,presently being self-regulated isn't effective as people tend to violate the rating system as the fines are nominal.Thus, he claims that there should be an independent body which will monitor the rating of electronic games in the games industry and prevent violation of the rating system, by prohibiting the defaulters from releasing a game for two years.
Though his claim may have merit, but the author has presented a poorly reasoned argumnet, based on questionable premises and assumptions, and thus , the argument in its current state,cannot be accepted as a valid argument.
The primary issue is with the premise, which is the basis of the author's argument. The author says that the rating sytem used for games is similar to that used for rating movies, however, he fails to elaborate on the reference system that is being discussed. How does the reference system help in deciding whether the content is appropriate or not? Who is the target audience, who are the consumers- from which age group- are they wise enough to decide for themselves, just by reading a reference guide?Secondly, he states that the current rating system is not working because it is self-regulated, and people continue to violate it as the fines are nominal. What is not clear is what are they violating, why they are violating -the rules how to rate a game as appropriate?How does it benefit them in the long run to violate the rules, that they are willing to pay the fine? These premises do not imply that an independent body will be the soltuion to avoid violation of the rating system- how will that independent body filter the defaulters, who will be the part of the independent body,will there be representation from the gaming industry as well, some members may become a part of it for their own vested interests. What about the additional cost- who will bear the cost for forming a new regulatory body?
Thus, the author's premise - basis for his argument, lacks legitimate evidentiary support and hence render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition to the premise, the author has made several assumptions that remain unproven, throughout the course of his argument. He assumes that the consumers are rationale, and wise enough to decide for themselves whether the game content is appropriate or not. also, an independent body will not constitute of memebers who will try and promote their own vested interests.By making these assumptions, the author has weakened his argument.
While the author's argument does have issues with the premises and the assumptions, it is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Had the author told us the that the consumers are wise enough to be left at their own discretions, and the the independent body will be able to find out the defaulters and it will indeed stop the violation of the current rating system, a scenario where this was successfully implemented and tested and yielded result, would have made the argument more powerful and convincing.
Thus, in its present state without any substantiated premises and assumptions, the author's argument is not persuasive.
