AWA Score: 4 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 3.5/6
The essay has a generally coherent structure and flow of ideas. However, there are some instances where the connection between sentences or paragraphs could be improved for a smoother transition between points.
Word Structure: 4/6
The word structure is mostly clear and understandable, but there are a few instances of awkward phrasing or word choices that could be improved for better readability and precision.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 4/6
The essay has a clear division into paragraphs, and each paragraph addresses a specific point. However, some paragraphs could be further developed to provide more thorough analysis and supporting evidence.
Language and Grammar: 4.5/6
The language used is generally appropriate and understandable. There are some grammatical errors and awkward sentence constructions that could be refined for better clarity.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 4/6
The vocabulary used is adequate for expressing the ideas, but there is room for improvement by incorporating more varied and sophisticated vocabulary to enhance the overall quality of the essay.
Overall, the essay presents a reasonable evaluation of the given argument, but there are areas that could be strengthened to improve its logical coherence and persuasive power. Adding more concrete evidence, providing stronger connections between points, and refining the language and word choice would enhance the effectiveness of the essay.
luffy98291 wrote:
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:[/b]
"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.
The editorial states that the current rating system for electronic games is similar to the rating system used by movies, by providing consumers with a quick reference to determine if the subject matter and contents of game are appropriate or not appropriate for audience. But editorial states that the current system does not work because it is self regulated by the gaming companies and the fines for violating the rating system are nominal. The editorial suggests that an independant body should oversee the gaming industry and all the companies which can punish the companies that violate the rating system by prohibiting them from releasing a game for two years. However the given argument has many flaws in this reasoning.
Firstly, the editorial suggests that the current system is not working because it is self regulated by the gaming companies, the argument does not provide any data that might suggest that the current system does not work and requires a change in process. Further it states that the reason for rating system to not work is the self regulation of the ratings by gaming companies, it could be possible that reason for failure of rating system might be due to relax standards set for rating a game rather than the process of self regulation of games.
Secondly, the arguments suggests the reason this rating system has failed is because the fines for violating the rating system are nominal, it does not provide any data on how it assess whether the fines are nominal or hefty. Also it could be possible while the fines themselves are nominal the gaming companies loose out a lot of sales because parents don’t want to buy games from gaming companies that violate rating system and hence have motive to follow the rating system. There is also no indication to suggest that companies are frequently violating the rating system and publishing new games by paying a nominal fees.
Thirdly it states that the best way to resolve this issue is by constituting an independant governing body which oversees the gaming industry and this body should stop bad actors by prohibiting them from releasing a game for two years. The argument assumes that by prohibiting a company to publish game for two years would stop companies from violating rating system, it could be possible that some games take more than 2 years to develop and companies are not affected by the punishment.
In summary the given argument falls short in many aspects, if the argument had more evidence for example data about how frequently the companies are violating the rules and whether the current fines are nominal to not deter companies from violating rating system, the editorial jump from stated premise to conclusion would have made more sense. Further information about prohibiting companies to publish games for 2 years will help independant body to prevent violation of rules was suggested by an outside independant analyst firms, the argument approach would have not sounded so jarring. In absence of these the given argument remains flawed.