I took the Manhattan GMAT
Test yesterday. Got the following argument topic :-
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:
"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."Kindly assess my essay. It would be of immense help as i have my GMAT after 7 days.
The author of the argument states that the rating system for electronic games is not effective in its proposed objective, which is determining whether a subject matter is appropriate for a certain age band of users. The argument, while stating this, assumes the logic that self regulation and nominal fines are acting as deterrents to the system's effectiveness. But, in concluding that an independent and neutral body would suffice to solve this supposed problem, the author undermines various other factors influential in the working of a rating system.
First of all, the premise used for reaching the conclusion is inadequate as a primary reason for the rating system's ineffectiveness. Rather self regulation does not always lead to undesirable ramifications. For example, Google, a company providing an internet based search engine, allows collection of all of the available data on the network. But, in doing so, the company does not(or at least till now has not) apply any biased perspective or any strategy solely profitable it on the way the search results are displayed. On the contrary, being self regulated, it allows free flow of information from user to user rather than showing what is appropriate.
Another faulty assumption in the reasoning is that nominal fines related to non conformation to the rating system leads to a monopoly over the decisions in rating a game product. Although this factor may be important on the periphery, its not a vital decision-altering one. Take the case of the movie rating system. The supposedly effective system may have achieved its primary goal due to reasons left unnoticed.
The proposed solution that an independent body would solve the problem is not convincing. Conversely, it may affect the working of the whole game development business by imposing burdens on the developers. The body would include members who may be more biased towards a certain issue than others. For example, in a war ridden country like Pakistan, any strategy based game involving war situations may be seen in bad light although it may contain certain aspects required for a teenager's mind to broaden and improve.Hence, the proposed solution may aggravate the problem rather than solving it.
In conclusion, the stated or assumed line of reasoning used to arrive at the aforementioned conclusion is faulty and full of mostly overrated premises. The author of the argument does not consider many other factors in his or her approach and in doing so, admittedly compares two rating systems implemented in disjoint fields.
Your essay got me thinking. When one starts a paragraph with "first of all (or something similar), should there a paragraph further down that says, second, and then maybe another one that says finally.