Please rate my essay

[vmohank1]

"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 author of the editorial concludes that an independent body is needed oversee the game industry and companies in order to regulate the rating system. While this claim may well be valid, the argument is based on several questionable assumptions and premises which make it hard to accept. Based on the evidence provided in the article, we cannot accept this argument as valid.

 

Firstly, the main issue with the author’s argument lies in the unsubstantiated premises. The article mentions that the game rating system is not working, but never addresses what is not working. There are number of factors such as consumer complaints, faulty games that could constitute the game rating system not working. However, the author is too vague as he simply mentions that the system is not working. In addition, he claims that the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. The author fails to mention what nominal exactly means. For instance, what is nominal for one company may not be nominal for another company. The lack of clear evidentiary support render this conclusion unacceptable.

 

Secondly, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that the implementation of independent body will improve the game rating system. However, it is possible that the independent body is ineffective and fails to improve the rating system. Furthermore, the argument makes the assumption that the entire game industry needs to be monitored rather than the rating system. The unsupported assumptions weaken the argument.

 

While there are issues with the argument, that is not to say that it has no base. The author can improve the argument by providing evidentiary support about what is not working in the game rating system and how the two year ban will help situation. The article can also provide statistics about the current fines for violating the rating system. The author can also strengthen the argument by providing clear evidence on why the implementation of the independent governing body will be successful in improving the game rating system.

 

In summ, the author’s argument has illogical structure, unsubstantiated premises and unsupported assumptions that render the claim unacceptable. If the author truly hopes to convince the readers that an independent body is required to improve the game rating system, he needs to conduct research to provide evidence and to support the assumptions. Until then, the claim may only be accepted be very few readers.