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 argument concludes that the game industry should be regulated by an independent body, to enforce a strict rating system and fine those companies heavily that do not comply with the rating system. At a first glance it seems that the author makes his point, convincingly, but a closer look reveals that the argument is weak and not convincing on more than one count.

Firstly, the author equates the rating system of movies to rating system of game industry, which some may agree to, but both are entirely different industries and such comparison is not appropriate. The factors that influence the ratings of the movies are different from factors that influence the ratings of the games. While the demographics of movie patrons, varies ranges from a five year old to a person 80 years or up, the same cannot be said of the gaming industry.

Second, the author says that the fines imposed on the companies that do not conform to the ratings, are nominal. The author fails to specify what constitutes nominal fines. Is the author comparing the fines imposed on the movies that do not conform to the ratings, if so the comparison is skewed. While the movies have a wider presence, with releases in multiple continents and the production and distribution of movies is pretty well streamlined, the same cannot be said of the game industry. A 100 million dollars fine, may seem nominal to a established movie industry, but prove devastating to a nascent gaming industry.

In addition, the author advocates for a independent governing body to oversee the gaming industry to enforce ratings. The argument fails to provide evidence that doing so, in other areas like movie industry, has led to increased compliance with the rating system. It could be that the number of violations, compared with, compliances could be well below that of movie industry, which has a governing body and enforces heavy fines on violators.

In sum, neither the argument is compelling nor the conclusion is convincing. The argument would have been irrefutable, had it included the aforesaid details.