The following appeared in a newspaper editorial.
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
The argument claims that violence in movies is the only cause of increasing crime rates in the cities. The argument gives a solution for this problem that the board should censor some movies or the persons above the age of 21 should only be permitted to watch these movies. However, the argument also claims that the legislators are not bothered about this issue because these actions have failed to get enough votes. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the assumption of the author is not valid as the violence in movies cannot be the only factor which would be responsible for the increasing crime rates. There is no such relationship between the violence shown in movies with that of crime rates. In addition to this, if at all the board censors certain movies which have action scenes, there is no such guarantee that the crime rates will go down. Because, action scenes can also be watched illegally on internet. Therefore, censoring the movies will not show any positive impact on the increasing crime rates in the city.
Secondly, the author also readily assumes that permitting the persons who are above 21 years of age will help in combating this problem. This assumption is also weak as the persons involved in the crime may not be the persons below the age of 21. Limiting admission over 21 years of age could also be harmful as they might be the culprits behind the crimes.
Finally, without convincing answers to the question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument could have been much clearer if the police force has been increased or the authority has shown some concern with regard to the increasing crime rate in the city.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular argument, without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
The argument claims that violence in movies is the only cause of increasing crime rates in the cities. The argument gives a solution for this problem that the board should censor some movies or the persons above the age of 21 should only be permitted to watch these movies. However, the argument also claims that the legislators are not bothered about this issue because these actions have failed to get enough votes. This argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly, the assumption of the author is not valid as the violence in movies cannot be the only factor which would be responsible for the increasing crime rates. There is no such relationship between the violence shown in movies with that of crime rates. In addition to this, if at all the board censors certain movies which have action scenes, there is no such guarantee that the crime rates will go down. Because, action scenes can also be watched illegally on internet. Therefore, censoring the movies will not show any positive impact on the increasing crime rates in the city.
Secondly, the author also readily assumes that permitting the persons who are above 21 years of age will help in combating this problem. This assumption is also weak as the persons involved in the crime may not be the persons below the age of 21. Limiting admission over 21 years of age could also be harmful as they might be the culprits behind the crimes.
Finally, without convincing answers to the question, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument could have been much clearer if the police force has been increased or the authority has shown some concern with regard to the increasing crime rate in the city.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular argument, without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
