"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 game rating system, although similar to the movie rating system is not working because it is self-regulated and the fines for violating the system are nominal. Hence, the independent body should oversee it. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and several other flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because electronic game rating system is self-regulated, it is not working well. This statement is stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous systems that rely on self-regulated systems and working pretty well. For Instance, Formula One Racing (F1) organisation depends on self regulated system for evaluation at different stages and most importantly, it is one of the most watched sport on the planet drawing over billion users per year. It is collecting a lot of capital through numerous sponsors around the year. Another example is the paralleled movie rating system that is also mentioned in the argument. The author fails to prove that does the movie rating system is working well or not? But, it is pretty well depicted that the movie rating system is widely accepted and people around the world are using it to pre evaluate the movies on the basis of different contributing factors such as the quality, length or on a scale of a number is it worth to spend money on. The movie rating system is also self-regulated and is woking quite well and to the negative side, it cannot contribute to the factors of a failing electronic game rating system. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly states that what factors are contributing to its failure such as customer dissatisfaction, negative feedbacks and many more.
Second, the argument claims that any violation fees or bad electronic game are nominal. It thus suggests that this is one more factor as why the rating system is not working. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the monetary amount of fees and the quality of rating system. In fact, the author doesn’t even provide any evidence for the paralleled system correlation with he monetary fine system had worked well for it, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. If the argument had provided evidence relating that the nominal fee amount lead to electronic game manufactures to ignore any regulation, it could have been strengthen further.
Finally, the argument claims that the independent body should oversee the game rating system and punish the companies that violates the rating system. From this statement again, it is not all clear that a regulated system is better than the self-regulated system in doing the assigned job. Without supporting evidences and examples from other companies where independent regulatory body has done a more satisfactory job, one is left with the impression that claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiated evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed are therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts or had provided any statistical data to support its claim. In order to asses the merits of a certain situation. It is essential to have a full knowledge about other contributing factors.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 576 350
No. of Characters: 2881 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.899 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.002 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.785 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 222 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.849 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.63 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
WordleToday is an exciting…
WordleToday is an exciting and immersive game website that has captivated word enthusiasts worldwide. Offering a plethora of challenging word games and puzzles, WordleToday is a haven for those seeking a mental workout and a dose of fun at the same time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 712, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...nore any regulation, it could have been strengthen further. Finally, the argument cla...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for instance, in fact, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2959.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 575.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14608695652 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89685180668 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84856611693 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450434782609 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 941.4 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.195170936 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.592592593 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2962962963 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.48148148148 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.385294454841 0.218282227539 177% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116591285887 0.0743258471296 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121184754565 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221646973559 0.128457276422 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110803160298 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: 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.