“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
In the above argument , the author had concluded that increasing violence in movies is responsible for a subsequent increase in crime rate of city. He had also given some measures to solve the problem he had formulated.
However author’s argument has some basic flaws ,which should be taken into consideration.
To start with , the author had straight forwardly held the violence in movies as responsible for the increase in crime rate of the city. However, he had not considered that case could be reverse. Movies depicts activities that goes in our society , whether it’s violence or struggles of people in their life. So it can be the case that increase in crime rate of society is making the producers to show violence and tell people the way it’s effecting their society.
Secondly, author had given formulation of censor board as a solution to the problem,if it’s there. However, the censor board policies , if not changed with the society then it may reduce the viewership of movies and in that process people may start negating even those movies which don’t shows any kind of violence. The formulation of these policies and making the sensor board to take care of society interest is an unacceptable solution.
Also, movies with violence can make the people to think twice before committing any crime if they had already seen it in a movie.
To be fair however, the author had tried to negate the effects of violence in movies on the increase in crime rate , but he had not clearly explained how violence in movies can effect person’s mentality and make him to commit crime.So as to make his argument more prudent, he must have to state certain examples, also if he wants to give a solution he has to give other options other then restricting people to see movies and formulating the very criticized censor board.
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.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
In the above argument , the author had concluded that increasing violence in movies is responsible for a subsequent increase in crime rate of city. He had also given some measures to solve the problem he had formulated.
However author’s argument has some basic flaws ,which should be taken into consideration.
To start with , the author had straight forwardly held the violence in movies as responsible for the increase in crime rate of the city. However, he had not considered that case could be reverse. Movies depicts activities that goes in our society , whether it’s violence or struggles of people in their life. So it can be the case that increase in crime rate of society is making the producers to show violence and tell people the way it’s effecting their society.
Secondly, author had given formulation of censor board as a solution to the problem,if it’s there. However, the censor board policies , if not changed with the society then it may reduce the viewership of movies and in that process people may start negating even those movies which don’t shows any kind of violence. The formulation of these policies and making the sensor board to take care of society interest is an unacceptable solution.
Also, movies with violence can make the people to think twice before committing any crime if they had already seen it in a movie.
To be fair however, the author had tried to negate the effects of violence in movies on the increase in crime rate , but he had not clearly explained how violence in movies can effect person’s mentality and make him to commit crime.So as to make his argument more prudent, he must have to state certain examples, also if he wants to give a solution he has to give other options other then restricting people to see movies and formulating the very criticized censor board.
rahul
