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
15 Mar 2015, 04:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
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 argument states that the game industry should be overseen by an independent body and that companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be not allowed to release the game for two years because the current game rating system does not work properly. The author names two reasons for that. First, the system is self regulated and second, the fines for any violation of the rating system are low. The argument also states that the rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that they both help consumers to decide if the subject matter is appropriate. While the argument does have some merit, stated in this way it fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument is flawed for several reasons and therefore unconvincing. In the following, the flaws will be presented and advice for further information will be given.
First, the author states that the system does not work because it is self regulated. Therefore, the author assumes that any system which is self regulated does not work properly. Sadly, the argument contains no evidence in favor of this claim. There are several examples of self regulated systems that work very well. The argument could have been seriously strengthened if the author included some evidence for the assumption that self regulated systems do usually not work.
Second, the argument states that the game rating system is not working because the fines for any violation of the system are nominal. Hence, the author readily assumes that the companies that are releasing a game are only concerned about money and raising the fines would lower the violations. But what if companies do not care about higher fines and would violate the system anyway because the violation has more advantages than disadvantages regarding a higher violation fee. If a violation means that a certain company is able to rate a game differently and as a consequence can sell much more games, a higher fee would still be nominal in comparison to much higher sales. If the author provided evidence that higher fees would lower number of violations, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Finally, the author argues for an independent body to oversee the game industry and must therefore assume that this change would also make the game rating system work. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that an independent body is superior to a self regulated system. If the author included examples or any other evidence in favor of that assumption, he could have substantiated his argument a lot. The argument also assumes that a two year prohibition form releasing the game would stop companies to violate the system. But, as stated above, there is no evidence in favor of this claim. Again, companies could compare their lost sales with their higher sales after the two years and still come to the conclusion that it makes sense to violate the system.
The argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. The author could have considerably strengthened his argument if he included the above mentioned information. Without further information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
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 argument states that the game industry should be overseen by an independent body and that companies that knowingly violate the rating system should be not allowed to release the game for two years because the current game rating system does not work properly. The author names two reasons for that. First, the system is self regulated and second, the fines for any violation of the rating system are low. The argument also states that the rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that they both help consumers to decide if the subject matter is appropriate. While the argument does have some merit, stated in this way it fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument is flawed for several reasons and therefore unconvincing. In the following, the flaws will be presented and advice for further information will be given.
First, the author states that the system does not work because it is self regulated. Therefore, the author assumes that any system which is self regulated does not work properly. Sadly, the argument contains no evidence in favor of this claim. There are several examples of self regulated systems that work very well. The argument could have been seriously strengthened if the author included some evidence for the assumption that self regulated systems do usually not work.
Second, the argument states that the game rating system is not working because the fines for any violation of the system are nominal. Hence, the author readily assumes that the companies that are releasing a game are only concerned about money and raising the fines would lower the violations. But what if companies do not care about higher fines and would violate the system anyway because the violation has more advantages than disadvantages regarding a higher violation fee. If a violation means that a certain company is able to rate a game differently and as a consequence can sell much more games, a higher fee would still be nominal in comparison to much higher sales. If the author provided evidence that higher fees would lower number of violations, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Finally, the author argues for an independent body to oversee the game industry and must therefore assume that this change would also make the game rating system work. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that an independent body is superior to a self regulated system. If the author included examples or any other evidence in favor of that assumption, he could have substantiated his argument a lot. The argument also assumes that a two year prohibition form releasing the game would stop companies to violate the system. But, as stated above, there is no evidence in favor of this claim. Again, companies could compare their lost sales with their higher sales after the two years and still come to the conclusion that it makes sense to violate the system.
The argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. The author could have considerably strengthened his argument if he included the above mentioned information. Without further information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
09 Jun 2015, 04:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
my gmat score is 690 . what r the chances in USA . which uni i should apply
Moderators:
189 posts
