Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
09 Apr 2016, 22:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in a news editorial:
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admissions to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
The argument claims that violence in movies leads to an increase in crime rates, and by not voting to increase regulation of movies politicians do not care about the issue of crime rates. This argument presents many specious claims, with several instances of poorly reasoned logic, assuming several effects derive from causes which remain unproven or unfounded by the author. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that as violence in movies increases so does the crime rate. This statement has no founding basis and no evidence is extended to support this claim. The argument does not cite any city statistics of crime rates against the years in which more violence in movies appeared. Additionally, even if the argument presented such data it would incorrectly attribute a correlation of violent movies and crime rates to the idea that violent movies can cause the increase of the crime rate. The argument does not present any plausible basis for what mechanism by which movie violence could even cause an increase in the crime rate. People who attend movies do so as a form of entertainment, realizing it represents a fictional set of circumstances. the argument does not clearly address how this perception of most movie attendees would then precipitate a real life increase in violence, for example.
Furthermore, the argument continues to make weak and unsupported claims in stating that the actions of the majority of politicians choosing not to vote for increased movie regulation can be explained by their apathy toward reducing crime rate. This again provides two seeming correlated events and fails to provide a substantive link or cause between the two events. The argument assumes that all the politicians ascribed to the original unfounded assumption that violence in movies do in fact affect the crime rate in cities. Alternatively, the politicians may have seen no founded connection between movie regulation and crime rates, and therefor chose their vote based on entirely different reasons. The argument could have more clearly explained what the majority of the politicians cited as there reason for not voting for new regulations. for one, if they did support increased regulation, they may have not supported the means of that regulation as outlined in the bill.
Finally, in parallel with the politicians voting against the bill, the argument seems the conclude that limiting admission to persons under 21 will entirely solve the perceived issue of violence in movies causing an increase in crime. There is no clear evidence why limiting admission to persons under 21 will prevent violent crimes from happening. The argument could strengthen or clarify this by giving more details to the nature of the crimes. If the increase in crime was mostly juvenile crime, or not. If there was an increase in juvenile crime, then the setting an age limit would possibly have an impact, but if crime was increased by all age groups, it is not clear how setting an age limit for violent movies would have any sort of immediate impact. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression the claim is more wishful thinking rather than a substantiated claim.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. in order to fully assess several of the claims, it is essential to understand how one claim can cause a certain effect. Specifically, how movie violence can cause increase in crime rates, or how limiting the age of entry can cause the crime rate to decline. Without this information, the argument has several gaps in logic, and remains unsubstantiated.
"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admissions to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."
The argument claims that violence in movies leads to an increase in crime rates, and by not voting to increase regulation of movies politicians do not care about the issue of crime rates. This argument presents many specious claims, with several instances of poorly reasoned logic, assuming several effects derive from causes which remain unproven or unfounded by the author. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that as violence in movies increases so does the crime rate. This statement has no founding basis and no evidence is extended to support this claim. The argument does not cite any city statistics of crime rates against the years in which more violence in movies appeared. Additionally, even if the argument presented such data it would incorrectly attribute a correlation of violent movies and crime rates to the idea that violent movies can cause the increase of the crime rate. The argument does not present any plausible basis for what mechanism by which movie violence could even cause an increase in the crime rate. People who attend movies do so as a form of entertainment, realizing it represents a fictional set of circumstances. the argument does not clearly address how this perception of most movie attendees would then precipitate a real life increase in violence, for example.
Furthermore, the argument continues to make weak and unsupported claims in stating that the actions of the majority of politicians choosing not to vote for increased movie regulation can be explained by their apathy toward reducing crime rate. This again provides two seeming correlated events and fails to provide a substantive link or cause between the two events. The argument assumes that all the politicians ascribed to the original unfounded assumption that violence in movies do in fact affect the crime rate in cities. Alternatively, the politicians may have seen no founded connection between movie regulation and crime rates, and therefor chose their vote based on entirely different reasons. The argument could have more clearly explained what the majority of the politicians cited as there reason for not voting for new regulations. for one, if they did support increased regulation, they may have not supported the means of that regulation as outlined in the bill.
Finally, in parallel with the politicians voting against the bill, the argument seems the conclude that limiting admission to persons under 21 will entirely solve the perceived issue of violence in movies causing an increase in crime. There is no clear evidence why limiting admission to persons under 21 will prevent violent crimes from happening. The argument could strengthen or clarify this by giving more details to the nature of the crimes. If the increase in crime was mostly juvenile crime, or not. If there was an increase in juvenile crime, then the setting an age limit would possibly have an impact, but if crime was increased by all age groups, it is not clear how setting an age limit for violent movies would have any sort of immediate impact. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression the claim is more wishful thinking rather than a substantiated claim.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvincing. in order to fully assess several of the claims, it is essential to understand how one claim can cause a certain effect. Specifically, how movie violence can cause increase in crime rates, or how limiting the age of entry can cause the crime rate to decline. Without this information, the argument has several gaps in logic, and remains unsubstantiated.
Moderators:
188 posts
