"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."
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.
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 0.240241500013 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.161875945537 0.157235817809 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0922844175492 0.0880659088768 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0726172465961 0.0497285424764 146% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0242057488654 0.0444667217837 54% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0953101361573 0.12292977631 78% => OK
Participles: 0.0499243570348 0.0406280797675 123% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76268553182 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0166414523449 0.030933414821 54% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.125567322239 0.0997080785238 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0166414523449 0.0249443105267 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0166414523449 0.0148568991511 112% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3655.0 2732.02544248 134% => OK
No of words: 599.0 452.878318584 132% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10183639399 6.0361032391 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94716853372 4.58838876751 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.382303839733 0.366273622748 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283806343907 0.280924506359 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.198664440735 0.200843997647 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128547579299 0.132149295362 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76268553182 2.79330140395 99% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 219.290929204 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442404006678 0.48968727796 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 53.2842368979 55.4138127331 96% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.6194690265 136% => OK
Sentence length: 21.3928571429 23.380412469 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0280095878 59.4972553346 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.535714286 141.124799967 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3928571429 23.380412469 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.642857142857 0.674092028746 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.21349557522 0% => OK
Readability: 49.7734915335 51.4728631049 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.52046783626 1.64882698954 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.584492386493 0.391690518653 149% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.114265389869 0.123202303941 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0719806962686 0.077325440228 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.510118058011 0.547984918172 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155081548527 0.149214159877 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.227852057954 0.161403998019 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134855121927 0.0892212321368 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.468815097622 0.385218514788 122% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.167668517147 0.0692045440612 242% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.40903066233 0.275328986314 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126414765383 0.0653680567796 193% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.4325221239 105% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.30420353982 264% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 7.22455752212 97% => OK
Negative topic words: 13.0 3.66592920354 355% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 20.0 13.5995575221 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.