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.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
28 Mar 2015, 10:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in a newspaper 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 admission 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.
Analysis :
The argument is weak for several underlying reasons. For instance, the very beginning of the argument is a vague statement without any proof whatsoever. There is also a case being made to screen the violent movies only to people aged 21 or higher, which makes it sound like all the crime in our society are committed by under aged folks, which clearly is wrong.
The argument assumes that violence in movies and crime rates in cities are directly proportional. Firstly, crime has been a part of our social culture long before movies came into the picture. There is also no data or statistical analysis to support the statement being made. We really can not measure violence as a quantity to know when it increases or decreases. Who is to decide what is the permissible amount of violence in a movie ? Person X may find a movie having barely 10 minutes of violence to be extreme while there may be another Person Y who enjoys watching movies with a certain amount of violence in it. It is also the responsibility of civilized citizens to learn from the good things that are shown in movies rather than focus on the violence. The argument would be better served had we been provided with some sort of data from which this conclusion has been drawn.
Moving on to the next part of the argument, there is a suggestion made that admissions to violent movies should be limited to people over 21 years of age. Although one would argue that if children are exposed to movies with extremely violent content they may be influenced by it, he must also realize that most crimes in the world are committed by people aged 21 or above. Hence, just limiting people of a certain age would not really cause an overall effect in the reduction of crime rate. Rather a prelude could be shown before such movies educating all the movie goers, irrespective of their age, about the downsides of violence.
It has also been mentioned that legislators are not concerned about this issue because a bill failed to receive majority vote. It simply can not be concluded that just because a bill fails it means that the legislators are not concerned. There are a number of criteria that a bill must fit into before it can be passed in the legislation. It is quite possible that some of these criteria were not met. More light could have been thrown on what the actual content of the bill was, rather than just blaming the legislators for not passing it.
Because the argument does not hold sufficient strength on several issues it can be deemed weak and insufficient. If it addressed some of the alternate solutions mentioned above, it would be better served in meeting it's objective.
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 admission 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.
Analysis :
The argument is weak for several underlying reasons. For instance, the very beginning of the argument is a vague statement without any proof whatsoever. There is also a case being made to screen the violent movies only to people aged 21 or higher, which makes it sound like all the crime in our society are committed by under aged folks, which clearly is wrong.
The argument assumes that violence in movies and crime rates in cities are directly proportional. Firstly, crime has been a part of our social culture long before movies came into the picture. There is also no data or statistical analysis to support the statement being made. We really can not measure violence as a quantity to know when it increases or decreases. Who is to decide what is the permissible amount of violence in a movie ? Person X may find a movie having barely 10 minutes of violence to be extreme while there may be another Person Y who enjoys watching movies with a certain amount of violence in it. It is also the responsibility of civilized citizens to learn from the good things that are shown in movies rather than focus on the violence. The argument would be better served had we been provided with some sort of data from which this conclusion has been drawn.
Moving on to the next part of the argument, there is a suggestion made that admissions to violent movies should be limited to people over 21 years of age. Although one would argue that if children are exposed to movies with extremely violent content they may be influenced by it, he must also realize that most crimes in the world are committed by people aged 21 or above. Hence, just limiting people of a certain age would not really cause an overall effect in the reduction of crime rate. Rather a prelude could be shown before such movies educating all the movie goers, irrespective of their age, about the downsides of violence.
It has also been mentioned that legislators are not concerned about this issue because a bill failed to receive majority vote. It simply can not be concluded that just because a bill fails it means that the legislators are not concerned. There are a number of criteria that a bill must fit into before it can be passed in the legislation. It is quite possible that some of these criteria were not met. More light could have been thrown on what the actual content of the bill was, rather than just blaming the legislators for not passing it.
Because the argument does not hold sufficient strength on several issues it can be deemed weak and insufficient. If it addressed some of the alternate solutions mentioned above, it would be better served in meeting it's objective.
15 Apr 2015, 14:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Very nice essay here! I am not a professional really though. But if you need some good review, use some review service. You can get some reviews on them on this site and choose one that will fit you. I did it too some time ago
Moderator:
