Please tell me an approximate score that I'll get for the following response :-
ESSAY QUESTION:
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The conclusion of the given argument is that an independent body should oversee the game industry and companies that knowingly violate the rating system are to be prohibited from releasing a game for two years. The premises of the argument are that the gaming industry is self regulated and fines for violating the rating system are nominal. The argument is flawed due to the reasons mentioned below.
To begin with, the author stresses that the rating system is not working as the same is self regulated. But such self regulation is also practiced in highly successful movie rating sites such as IMDB and book rating sites such as Goodreads. The problem is not with the self regulation, but with the lack of moderation and stringent controls in place to avoid intentional manipulation.
Additionally, with respect to the author's assertion of the fact that fines for violation of rating systems are nominal. Fines for violation should start from a nominal value and subsequently escalated in case of repeat offenders. Such a practice should be implemented across the gaming industry as the same is followed in a number of areas beyond rating systems as well such as law and order in various states.
Furthermore, the conclusion drawn in the argument of overseeing the game industry by an independent body and prohibition of companies violating the norms can be nullified by ensuring more stringent controls in the industry along with varied slabs of the fines that would be imposed in case of violation of the norms as mentioned in the above two paragraphs.
To conclude, if the author had mentioned self regulation with added levels of monitoring and moderation and varied slabs of fines imposed on the companies depending on the violations committed then the argument would have been more convincing.