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:
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the electronic game rating system is not working, because it is self regulated and the fines for violation are nominal. He proposes that an independent body oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. Though the argument may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premises.
To begin with, the author assumes that the game rating system is not working because it is self regulated. The argument however fails to provide any convincing evidence to back this claim. For instance, the F1 racing system even though it is self regulated is fairly successful. In addition, the self regulated mechanism seems to be working quite well in the case of the movies rating system. To support his claim, the author needs to provide further information as to why the self regulated mechanism is not working for the games rating system, even though it is working in the case of movies.
Second, the author claims that low fines are one of the reasons that the game rating system is not working without providing any additional data or evidence to back his claim. Fines may serve as a good deterrent but one is not sure as to how the monetary value of fines may make much of a difference. The author needs to provide supporting data to strengthen his argument.
Finally, the author proposes to set up an independent body to oversee the gaming industry and to prohibit companies from releasing a game for two years, if they knowingly violate the rating system. The argument however fails to provide any convincing evidence or data as to why this proposal will succeed. The author needs to provide additional data to support his proposal.
To sum up, the author's claim is unconvincing as it based on unsubstantiated assumptions and premises. We will need to reject the claim, unless the author provides additional evidence to back his claim as to how an independent body will help in this situation. The author also needs to furnish evidence to show that the current rating system is not working, because it is self regulated and the fines for violation are nominal.
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:
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the electronic game rating system is not working, because it is self regulated and the fines for violation are nominal. He proposes that an independent body oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. Though the argument may well have some merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable assumptions and premises.
To begin with, the author assumes that the game rating system is not working because it is self regulated. The argument however fails to provide any convincing evidence to back this claim. For instance, the F1 racing system even though it is self regulated is fairly successful. In addition, the self regulated mechanism seems to be working quite well in the case of the movies rating system. To support his claim, the author needs to provide further information as to why the self regulated mechanism is not working for the games rating system, even though it is working in the case of movies.
Second, the author claims that low fines are one of the reasons that the game rating system is not working without providing any additional data or evidence to back his claim. Fines may serve as a good deterrent but one is not sure as to how the monetary value of fines may make much of a difference. The author needs to provide supporting data to strengthen his argument.
Finally, the author proposes to set up an independent body to oversee the gaming industry and to prohibit companies from releasing a game for two years, if they knowingly violate the rating system. The argument however fails to provide any convincing evidence or data as to why this proposal will succeed. The author needs to provide additional data to support his proposal.
To sum up, the author's claim is unconvincing as it based on unsubstantiated assumptions and premises. We will need to reject the claim, unless the author provides additional evidence to back his claim as to how an independent body will help in this situation. The author also needs to furnish evidence to show that the current rating system is not working, because it is self regulated and the fines for violation are nominal.
