"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 wor

The argument claims that the rating system of electronic games is not an appropriate for grading and should be changed for independent organization which would be to oversee the game industry. Also companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. This conclusion is based on the provided evidence that the method of rating system for electronic games is the same as the movie rating system, and as a result, because of electronic game system is self-regulated this state is not working. 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 of all, the author states that due to new independent regulation body which should oversee the game industry the system of ranking electronic games will become more convenient and correct. Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide additional information about how this independent body would be working, regulate the game industry and the most significant question would it be commercial organization or public. For example, if it was business company from where it would be take money and make profit and what a goal this company would be pursue. On the other hand, if this independent body are created by government for what reason they should do it ? And the last reasonable question, if all costs to organize this company, which would regulate electronic games ranking, are too great to allow this independent agency. The author can strengthen the agrument by pointing out the shortcomings of the movie rating system and how it has lead to the failure of movie rating system.

In addition, this argument states that the electronic game rating system is not working because it is self regulated and fine for violating the rating system are nominal. The arguments claim that the punish represented by fines are one of reasons why rating system is not working. However, there are few other reasons why it happens. For instance, what if workers which rates are not able to make adequate marks because they are not enough qualified in this field ? This may be the key factor why this system is not working, not the fact that it self-regulated.

Finally, the language which is expressed author is not clear and vague. For instance, when author use self-regulated what sense does he put in there. Or when he say about violations what does he mean by that. Are there any criteria for which electronic games are ranked and not considered to be violate ?

In conclusion, the argument is weak because of above mentioned reasons and is therefore flawed. It could be considerably strengthened if author mentioned all of the relevant facts. In order to estimate the validity of a argument it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument is un-substantiated and open to debate.

Votes
Average: 6 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2484 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.741 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.094 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.503 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5