The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:[/b]
"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.
The argument claims that the electronic games rating system, although similar to the movie rating system, is not working because it is self regulated and violation fines are nominal, Hence, the gaming rating system should be overseen by an independent body. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because the electronic game rating system is self regulated, it is not working well. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples in other areas of business or commerce, where the entities are self regulated and rather successful. For instance, FIA, the Formula1 racing organization is self regulated. Yet, the sport is very popular and successful, drawing millions of spectators around the world each year. Tickets are rather expensive, races are shown on pay-per-view, and nearly all drivers are paid very well. Another example is the paralleled movie rating system that the argument mentions. The author fails to clarify whether it is working well, but it is clear that the movie rating system is pretty well received by people, who often base their decisions to go see a movie with kids or not on the movie rating. It has never been a case when someone would feel cheated by the movie rating and express disappointment afterwards. Since the movie rating system is also self regulated, it follows that this regulatory method is working pretty well and it is not obvious how it can be the reason for the poor electronic game rating system. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly gave examples of how the self regulatory system led to bad ratings and customer dissatisfaction.
Second, the argument claims that any violation fees for bad electronic game ratings are nominal. It thus suggests that this is yet another reason for the rating system not working. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the monetary amount of the fines and the quality of the electronic game rating system. In fact, the argument does not even draw a parallel with the mentioned movie rating system and its violation fines. If any such correlation had been shown for the movie rating system, which supposedly works well, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. In addition, if the argument provided evidence that low violation fines lead to electronic game manufacturers to ignore any regulations with respect to the game rating system, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Finally, the argument concludes that an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that violate the rating system, should be punished. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how an independent regulatory body can do a better job than a self regulated one. Without supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where independent regulatory bodies have done a great job, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-19 | kagrawal61@gmail.com | 89 | view |
| 2018-05-18 | maverickmaven | 73 | view |
| 2016-08-11 | Aummul | 83 | view |
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of video rental stores."In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten video rental stores. Since we are famou 54
- Women and men have inherent physical differences, they are not equally suitable for many tasks.To what extent do you agree or disagree with the topic. In what way can your stand be challenged. Discuss giving suitable examples. 58
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of the corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to mak 50
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist."Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded that children in Tertia were reared by the entire village rather than by their own 54
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own 94
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'in fact', 'in summary', 'as a result', 'with respect to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24810892587 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.161875945537 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0922844175492 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0726172465961 0.0520304965353 140% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0242057488654 0.0272364105082 89% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0953101361573 0.125424944231 76% => OK
Participles: 0.0499243570348 0.0416121511921 120% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76268553182 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0166414523449 0.026700313972 62% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.125567322239 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0166414523449 0.0255425247493 65% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0166414523449 0.0127820249294 130% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3655.0 2731.13054187 134% => OK
No of words: 599.0 446.07635468 134% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10183639399 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94716853372 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.382303839733 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283806343907 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.198664440735 0.208842608468 95% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128547579299 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76268553182 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 207.018472906 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442404006678 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 53.2842368979 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 21.3928571429 23.2022227129 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0280095878 57.7814097925 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.535714286 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3928571429 23.2022227129 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.642857142857 0.724660767414 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.7734915335 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.52046783626 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.554789110424 0.441005458295 126% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.114265389869 0.135418324435 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0719806962686 0.0829849096947 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.510118058011 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155081548527 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.226847071191 0.193483328276 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120232412229 0.0970749176394 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.468815097622 0.42659136922 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.167668517147 0.0774707102158 216% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.409325660332 0.312017818177 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0887031824852 0.0698173142475 127% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.