“As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To

Pls Rate this argument and provide valuable comments.


The argument that crime rates are increasing with increasing violence in movies appears to be convincing on first glance but on a close inspection it falls apart in many fronts.
First it assumes that crime rates increases mainly due to the violence in the movies. The author has not corroborated his view point and has generalized the issues mentioned without valid proof points. Violence in movies could possibly be a reason, however it couldn’t be a sole factor that could surge upon the crime rates in a society .Factors like – political situation of the country, environment of upbringing , violence as seen from other media would also count in an increasing crime .

Secondly the argument overlooks the point that adults above age 21 will not commit crimes. It has illogically assumed that limiting admission of persons over 21 years will help in reducing crime ratio . The assumption has no supporting point or examples to attest its stance .

The above discussed obvious flaws in the assumptions of the argument refrains from making the argument a convincing and persuasive one . If it had considered these points while making the decision or action steps, it would have been more systematic and resounding

Hi,

I happened to take a crack at this essay as well today. Would be great if someone could review my essay and grade/rate and critically review it.

Thanks a lot !

========

The argument states that setup of boards to strengthen censorship laws on movies with violence is not taken up seriously by legislators since such a bill was recently turned down. It also states that it is necessary to have such a board to censor movies with violence, as they are considered responsible for increasing crime rate in cities. The argument is flawed as it fails to consider the fact that it is not just absence of certain board or censorship on movies which is responsible for increasing crime rates, but there are other contributing factors to it as well.

Firstly, the argument that the legislators are not concerned about this issue, since a bill calling for censoring movies or limiting admission to movies based on age had failed to receive a majority vote, is not based on factual information. It might be true that they are not taking it up right now. However, this does not take into consideration that legislators might be trying to gather more facts before they go in and propose a bill since it was recently turned down. Also, the legislators might be looking for other alternatives, such as enforcing producers to introduce call-outs on scenes with violence in movies about them being hypothetical or theatrical, which can put it in audience’ mind that any act of violence they see in movies should not be imitated in real life.

Secondly, the argument assumes presence of board to censor movies with violence or limiting admission to persons over 21 years of age will help cut down crime in cities. The argument fails to take into consideration the fact that most of the criminals might be aged 21 and above, which will fail the purpose of age censorship on movies with violence. Moreover, is it the people watching these movies who have been constantly involved in committing crime – that might be another question to ask before the author of the editorial concludes that this censorship can bring down crime rate.

Finally, author’s presumption around there being a direct correlation between violence in movies and crime rates seems flawed and weak. Is violence in movies the only contributor to rising crime in cities? Answer to this question might lead into the conclusion that there are reasons beyond on screen violence which are responsible for high crime rate.

To conclude, the argument could have been stronger if the author would have taken into consideration other supporting facts and evidences such as the reason behind legislators’ behavior and rationale behind their thinking and action or reason why the bill was turned down in the past and how can it be avoided in future. Furthermore, the author should consider if setting up the board is the only solution or can there be better alternatives.

This essay is well written! Good format and style. If I had to make a suggestion, I would suggest you to write a bit more about the subject, by adding another paragraph. Anyways, as I have said it's written good, I rate it 5.

The argument speaks of how as violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in the cities. It certainly assumes that, of late, the number of movies that glorify violence is increasing and as a result, the criminal activities in the cities are also increasing. Implied in this assumption is another assumption that, movies that glorify violence have a great influence on the minds of its viewers. What could corroborate this assumption is to compare the statistics, i.e, by considering the reported criminal activities during a time period when no such movies were released compared to when a large proportion of the same was released. A strong positive or lack of correlation thereof could throw light into this assumption. But it could also have been that the number of reported crimes vary from time to time due to a number of factors like the political and socio-economic situations of the period. As the number of reported criminal activities vary, an unambiguous extrapolation cannot be made.

Secondly, the argument propounds that a censor board that censors only certain movies need to be established. It is unclear as to who will decide which all movies would come under this category. It might be that another board would need to be established to decide which all movies would need to be censored in the first place. In such a case, parties with vested interests would come into the picture and the movie would have to be edited in a way, that would suit a particular individuals' tastes. And naturally, what is violent for one person may not be so for another, for the tolerance for action and blood is personal and vary with demographics- be it age, gender or race.

Further, the author suggests as a solution, to limit admission to only those over 21 years of age. The age of being considered an adult, the age of consent, the legal age for drinking, driving etc vary from country to country. Such limitations have been placed on the society after painstaking research and after conducting surveys and collecting data that make compelling arguments for such reasonable restrictions to be placed on them. I'm not sure if introducing an age limit for movie viewing is an effective idea. It sounds rather extreme. It needs to be carefully studied if this would be of any help. True that, it may be the younger generation or the teenagers who are most influenced by violence. But in this age and day, when movies are just a click away on the internet, apart from reducing profits for the movie makers by reducing the movie-going audiences - of which these teenagers form a huge chunk of - it won't be that effective. Rather than a one-step ban for those who are younger than 21, better and more effective steps and strategies could be considered. Moral education that would advise one to see a movie as just a movie and not real life comes to the mind.

And as a conclusion, all my previous arguments could be some oreasons as to why the bill that was introduced failed to receive a majority vote. The bill being introduced itself stands testament to the fact that the legislators are indeed concerned about the issue, contrary to the argument made by the author. As to why the bill failed - the provisions of the bill need to be studied. Maybe the legislators thought that some provisions were too strong or that they weren't effective enough? But if it was in fact only a half-hearted attempt to appease the voters, then stronger actions need to be demanded.

I took the liberty to write an essay too.
Would you mind comment on the giving reasons ? KapTeacherEli
Thanks in advance.

The argument claims that violence in movies correlates with crime rates in the city and, therefore, in order to bring down crime rates, the city must censor certain movies. However, the bill for such issues doesn’t gain the majority vote. The author, then, translates such act as an inconsiderate one. However, this claim is flawed and unconvincing in two ways as it implies correlation for causation and fails to consider other factors involved.

To begin with, the argument readily assumes that the rise of violence in movies causes the rise of crimes without proving any link between the two. Sci-fi, horror, and action movies are a good source of entertainment for many people even though they involve some violent scenes. People watch such movie for excitement or relaxation. Taken, for example, is one of the all-time most popular film yet there is no evidence supporting consistent high crime rate since the movie released. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly explains how any violent scenes in the movies trigger violent behaviors.

Secondly, the author doesn’t consider other factors related to the rising crimes. Bad economy, corrupted communities, and high unemployment can all contribute to the rising crimes. This, again, renders a weak argument as it omits the important factors on the basis of which it needs to be evaluated. For example, the economic downturn where unemployment rate spikes and inflation rate is high can motivate violent acts such as murder and kidnap as people struggle to survive. If such consideration was incorporated along with the popularity of the violent movies, the author would have sounded more thorough and grounded. The overall argument would then be strengthened.

Thirdly, the argument concludes that legislators are not concerned about the rising violent crimes as they turn down the bill to censor certain movies. From this statement again, it is not clear how legislators could relate rising movie popularity to a horrific crime. Without a sensible causation link and consideration of other economic factors, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than a well-supported and logical argument. As a result, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.

In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing as the reasons. Nevertheless, the argument could be better posed if the author provides a logical link explaining how violent movies cause violent behaviors and, in turn, raise the crime rates in addition with the overview of the economic condition in the period in order to assess the merits of the situation.

Where is the prompt?

Please review my essay, thanks!

_____

The argument in the newspaper details that the increase in violence in movies is accompanied by an increase in crime rates in the cities and suggests that to mitigate this problem, a movie-censoring board should be created or only admission to such movies should be granted only to viewers over 21 years of age. The argument then concludes that legislators do not care about the rise in crime rates due to the increase in violence in movies because a bill which recommends the remedies offered by the argument was denied. This argument is however deeply flawed because it relies on several unsupported assumptions and fails to consider other key factors that are necessary in evaluating the arguments claims and conclusion.

First, the argument is flawed because it suggests that the increase of violence in movies causes the increase in crime rates in the cities without corroborating such claim. There could be other explanations for the increase in crime rate such as the infiltration of drugs into the city, unemployment of the cities’ residents, or a recent dispute and riot in the city. The aforementioned factors could have contributed to an increase in the crime rate of the city therefore, this would weaken the arguments claim. Furthermore, the argument fails to explain the nature of the crimes that have contributed to the rise in the crime rate. If such crimes are non-violent crimes such as money-laundering, credit card fraud, tax evasion, etc, then the argument is weakened because it is unlikely that violence in movies would spur such non-violent crimes. The argument could be significantly strengthened if it offered cogent evidence such as convincing research that shows violence in movies leads to crimes any by showing that the crimes causing a rise in the crime rate are violent.

In addition, the argument is weak because it concludes that the way to combat the problem at hand is through a board or by only admitting persons over 21 years of age. This reasoning is flawed because such solutions may not mitigate the problem as people may still be able to access violent movies through other sources other than venues that require admission. Furthermore, if the crimes in the city are currently being commited by those above 21 years of age, such individuals will still have access to violent movies and this would have no impact on the problem. The argument could be strengthened by offering more impactful remedies such as campaigns to parents to limit their dependents consumption of violent moves.

Finally, the argument concludes that legislators do not care about the rising crime rate from violence in movies because a bill that recommend remedies suggested by the argument was not passed. This conclusion is weak because legislators may have found the recommendations in the bill as ineffective and require more practical means of combating the problem.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed because of the aforementioned reasons. The argument would have been considerably strengthened by offering evidence support its assumptions and claims and by considering other key factors. However, because the argument does not do these things, it is flawed and open to debate.