Recommendations for AWA essay

[HernanA804]

Hi, everyone, I would much appreciate some comments and recommendations regarding the following essay

"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 presented, although seems logical, presents several flaws that make it questionable. The author assumes that the rating system does not function properly, considers that problem is generated by the body that regulates the industry and proposes a solution based on an independent body, but in non of these points provides evidence to support the assertions.

First, the writer indicates that the rating system doesn't work properly, but he does not provides evidence to help understand this claim. As this is a very broad assumption, it is not possible to evaluate if a solution is needed or if the proposed solution could be applicable in this case. if for example the author had included cases where he considers that the system is failing, and had shown how the new system would improve the scenario, the whole argument would be strengthen.

Second, the author points out that the cause of the problem is that the body that controls the industry is also part of the same industry. Here he is implying that the decisions that the body is making could be biased. In this case,the author omits to include evidence on which the assumption could be supported. If he truly believes that the decisions are not independent, he could have included some examples to prove his point.

Finally, the author proposes an independent body to regulate the industry, and gives an example of an applicable restriction in case of a violation. Here again, the author makes several assumptions that affect the soundness of the argument. For example, he does not indicate how this new independent body should operate or if it is even possible to restrict a company from publishing a new game. In order to improve the argument, the author should have further described the proposed solution, explaining in detail how it is going to work, and the advantages of it compared to the current situation.

In conclusion, the points presented seem to be valid, but as the author omits to include key information to analyze them, the argument does not hold. As mentioned before, the incorporation of evidence on the major assumptions would have made the argument sounder and less open to debate.


Best
Hernan