GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi Andrea and others,

This is my first attempt at an Analysis of an Argument essay, after developing a general template. May I request if you could please rate this essay and offer your comments / feedback on how I could improve?

Thank you for your time.



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 argument states that because the electronic game rating system has not worked so far, the game industry should be regulated by an independent body which can oversee the rating system and make it more effective. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the electronic game rating system is not working because the system is unregulated and because the punitive measures for stopping the violation of the rating system are inadequate. This statement is a stretch considering that there may be other factors at play which have resulted in the failure of the rating system. For example, the standards, if any, that have been developed towards the rating of individual game titles may be ambiguous and left to the subjectivity of the game developers. Further, the game companies may be finding it difficult to apply the rating system to the new genres of games that they are coming up with and hence, there may be a need to relook at the rating standards developed for the gaming titles. Clearly, the assumption that the failure of the rating system is directly linked with the absence of an effective regulatory mechanism indicates a fallacy in the reasoning. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the standards for rating of electronic games under the present system are well-developed, universally accepted, and continuously evolved.

Second, the argument claims that the presence of an independent regulator and adequate punitive measures will result in the effective implementation of the rating system in the electronic gaming industry, as is the case in the movie industry. This claim is weak and unsupported as the argument does not establish a direct causality between the regulatory mechanism and success of the rating system in the movie industry. For instance, there may be an incentive on the part of the movie producers to follow the rating system voluntarily because their titles may have a dedicated audience which pays special attention to the rating level of a title before purchasing it. This incentive may not be available to the electronic game producers. While the presence of an effective regulatory system may be one of the reasons why the rating system works in the movie industry, it may not be the only reason. If the argument had provided evidence to the contrary, it would have been much more convincing.

Finally, the argument leaves several questions unanswered. What if the proposed punishment, i.e. banning a gaming company to release a game for two years, may prove to be ineffective? It may well be the case that a gaming company anyways takes no less than two years to develop and commercially release its next game after the release of a new game in the market. What if the rating system in the movie industry works differently in that the rating is decided by the regulator and not the movie producer? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is weak and unconvincing because of the above-stated reasons. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all facts relevant to the rating system and regulatory mechanism of the gaming and movie industries. Without this information, the argument remains weak and open to debate.