Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
04 Sep 2020, 00:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Below is my AWA. My exam is in one week, and I have only practiced 2 essays just now
if someone can provide the analysis, it would be helpful to decide whether to practice more.
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 states that ratings scales of both the Electronic gaming industry and Movie industry are similar to each other and operate in similar way. Both rating systems helps consumers of both industries to judge the contents of the game or movie. Argument states that games rating system is not fulfilling its desired intent and can be further fine-tuned by regulation by an independent body and and imposing hefty penalties on the companies that knowingly violate the rating system. Stated in this way argument, though not explicitly stating, has implied that movie rating system is working fine and has been successful. Argument has not compared the similarities in more detail so that factor contributing to the failure of gaming rating systems can be identified, but has rushed to the conclusion without giving any premise which led to it.
First, the argument assumes that since both rating system are similar to each other, then both should get equally good response from consumers. Argument fails to take into account the difference in nature and habits of consumers for both industries. Both types of consumers may have different need and might be looking for different factors while judging the content.
To illustrate, a movie is rated very high on the storyline and medium on all other factors, even then the movie gets a very high overall rating considering the high weightage that people give the storyline of a movie. In the same way, a game is rated very high on storyline, and medium on all other factors, and still game is poorly rated overall, because storyline is not the main promising thing a consumer looks while buying a game. Thus, it is necessary to determine the differences in preferences of consumers in both industry, and account for these differences.
Second, the Argument has not clearly stated any evidence while that the gaming rating system is not working because it is self-regulated. There are numerous other industries that are self-regulated and are working tremendously fine. This intermediate conclusion is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. More information regarding the exact negative impact that the gaming rating system faced because of being self-regulated. The movie rating system is also self-regulated, and considering the argument that has implied that the movie rating system is very successful, it can be said that elf regulation might not be the reason for failure. If it is, then more concrete evidence is necessary to arrive at any conclusion.
Finally, the argument concludes that an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that violate the rating system should be punished. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how an independent regulatory body can do a better job. Without supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where independent regulatory bodies have done a great job, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this info, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
if someone can provide the analysis, it would be helpful to decide whether to practice more.
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 states that ratings scales of both the Electronic gaming industry and Movie industry are similar to each other and operate in similar way. Both rating systems helps consumers of both industries to judge the contents of the game or movie. Argument states that games rating system is not fulfilling its desired intent and can be further fine-tuned by regulation by an independent body and and imposing hefty penalties on the companies that knowingly violate the rating system. Stated in this way argument, though not explicitly stating, has implied that movie rating system is working fine and has been successful. Argument has not compared the similarities in more detail so that factor contributing to the failure of gaming rating systems can be identified, but has rushed to the conclusion without giving any premise which led to it.
First, the argument assumes that since both rating system are similar to each other, then both should get equally good response from consumers. Argument fails to take into account the difference in nature and habits of consumers for both industries. Both types of consumers may have different need and might be looking for different factors while judging the content.
To illustrate, a movie is rated very high on the storyline and medium on all other factors, even then the movie gets a very high overall rating considering the high weightage that people give the storyline of a movie. In the same way, a game is rated very high on storyline, and medium on all other factors, and still game is poorly rated overall, because storyline is not the main promising thing a consumer looks while buying a game. Thus, it is necessary to determine the differences in preferences of consumers in both industry, and account for these differences.
Second, the Argument has not clearly stated any evidence while that the gaming rating system is not working because it is self-regulated. There are numerous other industries that are self-regulated and are working tremendously fine. This intermediate conclusion is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. More information regarding the exact negative impact that the gaming rating system faced because of being self-regulated. The movie rating system is also self-regulated, and considering the argument that has implied that the movie rating system is very successful, it can be said that elf regulation might not be the reason for failure. If it is, then more concrete evidence is necessary to arrive at any conclusion.
Finally, the argument concludes that an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that violate the rating system should be punished. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how an independent regulatory body can do a better job. Without supporting evidence and examples from other businesses where independent regulatory bodies have done a great job, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this info, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate
Moderators:
