I just took this from one of the examples in the sticky thread.
It'd be great if someone could look over this and give me some feedback!
I write my GMAT on Saturday!
Your help is much appreciated!
Thanks!
Question:
"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.
Answer:
In the preceeding statement, the author argues that the rating system for electronic games is not working since the industry itself is self regulated. As the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated premises and unproven assumptions, his claim is flawed and cannot be accepted to be valid.
The primary issue with the author's argument is the premise that a self regulated electronic games industry is not capable of rating products accurately. There is no evidence provided that proves this point. The self regulated industry may very well be better at rating the games than an independent body since the developers of the games themselves are the ones rating the games. Furthermore, the premise that the nominal fines are not significant enough to deter electronic games company's is not proven. These company's may already be detered by these fines, and have invested more into developing their self regulated rating system.
In addition, the author's argument assumes that the independent body reviewing this rating system knows the content and subject matter of the games, and will be able to accurately provide consumers with a rating. This is an unsubstantiated claim as there is no evidence to prove that the independent body can do a better job. The independent body could be lobbied by electronic game companies and hence render the argument invalid. The author also assumes that an increase in fines, and a two year prohibition of releasing games is significant enough to deter electronic game companies from violating the rating system. This may not be the case as the amount of time used to develop a game is unknown. It could very well take 2 years to develop a game, which would therefore not deter game developers from violating this rating system.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, it may not be on false grounds. If the author provides evidence that an independent body is capable of understanding the subject matter, contents, and reviewing the electronic game rating system, the reader may be more likely to be convinced of his argument. Furthermore, the author's argument would be more convincing if evidence is presented that shows that the indepedent body is not being lobbied, and that electronic games are developed in less than 2 years.
In sum, the author's illogical argument, unsubstantiated premises, and poorly reasoned assumptions render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to convince readers, his argument will have to be restructed, additional strengthening evidence will have to be brought forth, and his assumptions will have to be solidified.
It'd be great if someone could look over this and give me some feedback!
I write my GMAT on Saturday!
Your help is much appreciated!
Thanks!
Question:
"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.
Answer:
In the preceeding statement, the author argues that the rating system for electronic games is not working since the industry itself is self regulated. As the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated premises and unproven assumptions, his claim is flawed and cannot be accepted to be valid.
The primary issue with the author's argument is the premise that a self regulated electronic games industry is not capable of rating products accurately. There is no evidence provided that proves this point. The self regulated industry may very well be better at rating the games than an independent body since the developers of the games themselves are the ones rating the games. Furthermore, the premise that the nominal fines are not significant enough to deter electronic games company's is not proven. These company's may already be detered by these fines, and have invested more into developing their self regulated rating system.
In addition, the author's argument assumes that the independent body reviewing this rating system knows the content and subject matter of the games, and will be able to accurately provide consumers with a rating. This is an unsubstantiated claim as there is no evidence to prove that the independent body can do a better job. The independent body could be lobbied by electronic game companies and hence render the argument invalid. The author also assumes that an increase in fines, and a two year prohibition of releasing games is significant enough to deter electronic game companies from violating the rating system. This may not be the case as the amount of time used to develop a game is unknown. It could very well take 2 years to develop a game, which would therefore not deter game developers from violating this rating system.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, it may not be on false grounds. If the author provides evidence that an independent body is capable of understanding the subject matter, contents, and reviewing the electronic game rating system, the reader may be more likely to be convinced of his argument. Furthermore, the author's argument would be more convincing if evidence is presented that shows that the indepedent body is not being lobbied, and that electronic games are developed in less than 2 years.
In sum, the author's illogical argument, unsubstantiated premises, and poorly reasoned assumptions render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to convince readers, his argument will have to be restructed, additional strengthening evidence will have to be brought forth, and his assumptions will have to be solidified.
