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.
Although this argument sounds reasonable it does not include enough evidence to substantiate this claim. The author wrongly assumes that increase in violence in movies has contributed to the increased crime rate in the city. Furthermore he unduly blames the legislators since the bill failed to receive a majority.
Firstly the increase in crime rate in the city cannot be solely attributed to increase in violence in movies. The increase in crime rate could be because the law enforcing agencies in the city are not strict enough or because the recent unemployemnt crisis in the city has led people to switch to crime.
The author also advocates the creation of a censor board to censor movies which are increasingly violent in nature. .Even if its assumed that increases in violence has caused this problem, no substantial evidence has been provided to show that the people are watching more violent movies now. The author also says entry must be restricted to persons below 21 years of age. Government laws state that person is an adult when he/she is 18. In this context the authors point seems ridiculous since anybody who is an adult cannot be curtailed from doing anything that’s legally permissible.
The author also blames the legislators for not being concerned abou this issue since the bill calling for such actions was recently vetoed. The reason for the bill being vetoed might because an independent committee which was asked to look into the issue has found no correlation between increase in crime rate and violence in movies. The report has also reasoned that setting up a censor would only be a waste of tax payers money.
Taking this into account the legislators have voted against the bill and instead are probing into the actual reasons as to why the crime rate in the city has increased.
In conclusion unless the points made by the author are clearly substantiated an all ambiguities are removed the argument cannot be logically conclusive.
Thanks...
Although this argument sounds reasonable it does not include enough evidence to substantiate this claim. The author wrongly assumes that increase in violence in movies has contributed to the increased crime rate in the city. Furthermore he unduly blames the legislators since the bill failed to receive a majority.
Firstly the increase in crime rate in the city cannot be solely attributed to increase in violence in movies. The increase in crime rate could be because the law enforcing agencies in the city are not strict enough or because the recent unemployemnt crisis in the city has led people to switch to crime.
The author also advocates the creation of a censor board to censor movies which are increasingly violent in nature. .Even if its assumed that increases in violence has caused this problem, no substantial evidence has been provided to show that the people are watching more violent movies now. The author also says entry must be restricted to persons below 21 years of age. Government laws state that person is an adult when he/she is 18. In this context the authors point seems ridiculous since anybody who is an adult cannot be curtailed from doing anything that’s legally permissible.
The author also blames the legislators for not being concerned abou this issue since the bill calling for such actions was recently vetoed. The reason for the bill being vetoed might because an independent committee which was asked to look into the issue has found no correlation between increase in crime rate and violence in movies. The report has also reasoned that setting up a censor would only be a waste of tax payers money.
Taking this into account the legislators have voted against the bill and instead are probing into the actual reasons as to why the crime rate in the city has increased.
In conclusion unless the points made by the author are clearly substantiated an all ambiguities are removed the argument cannot be logically conclusive.
Thanks...
