I take the GMAT on 27.5. I am rounding off my preparation with full mocks. Alas, AWAs won't be rated. Please share some hints!
![]()
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.
Author of the argument says that the rating system for electronic games was flawed because it was self regulated and the violation fines were very low. To better the system he proposes that an independent body control the game industry and that companies known to violate the system be banned from publishing a game for two years. However, the author fails in few spots. First, the argument is imprecise; second, it is based on assumptions; and third, it lacks supportive evidence. Let me elaborate the points made.
First, the author forgets to explain what a „self-regulated“ system actually means. Is the system regulated by an industry-internal committee or by an algorithm applied by producers? How well is this system developed? Another inaccuracy concerns the „independent body“. Which one? Does such an independent body exist at all? Or is it to be formed? Of who should it consist, if so? These shortcomings reveal that the author rather hopes for than proposes something.
Second, the proposed means rely on assumptions. The author assumes that the independent body will be more effective than the „self-regulated“ system, without actually describing nor the body neither the system with one word. Furthermore, he naively believes that a 2-year ban would generate any consequences to games producers. He should have checked how long does it take to release one game. For instance, if a company releases a product every 5 years on average, it would be hardly affected by such a ban.
Third, there is no evidence given to support the efficacy of proposed solution. Hence, the argument can be refuted with just a little effort, for instance by providing evidence that 2 years is a very short time perspective in electronic games industry, or that the idea about the independent body is just a vague phrase without any plan whatsoever.
The argument could be strenghtened by making the stipulations more precise: as for the body – who would form it, what should it oversee, who would endorse it, etc. As for the 2-years ban idea: would the subjects be affected any more than by the mentioned nominal fines? This need to be substantiated by actual balance sheets from the companies in question.
In closing, the argument has a few serious leaps of faith, as described. Without substituting them with palpable data it will remain just a wish to be heard. Hence, the author needs to put some more effort and first better his objections, and only then try to better the rating system.
"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.
Author of the argument says that the rating system for electronic games was flawed because it was self regulated and the violation fines were very low. To better the system he proposes that an independent body control the game industry and that companies known to violate the system be banned from publishing a game for two years. However, the author fails in few spots. First, the argument is imprecise; second, it is based on assumptions; and third, it lacks supportive evidence. Let me elaborate the points made.
First, the author forgets to explain what a „self-regulated“ system actually means. Is the system regulated by an industry-internal committee or by an algorithm applied by producers? How well is this system developed? Another inaccuracy concerns the „independent body“. Which one? Does such an independent body exist at all? Or is it to be formed? Of who should it consist, if so? These shortcomings reveal that the author rather hopes for than proposes something.
Second, the proposed means rely on assumptions. The author assumes that the independent body will be more effective than the „self-regulated“ system, without actually describing nor the body neither the system with one word. Furthermore, he naively believes that a 2-year ban would generate any consequences to games producers. He should have checked how long does it take to release one game. For instance, if a company releases a product every 5 years on average, it would be hardly affected by such a ban.
Third, there is no evidence given to support the efficacy of proposed solution. Hence, the argument can be refuted with just a little effort, for instance by providing evidence that 2 years is a very short time perspective in electronic games industry, or that the idea about the independent body is just a vague phrase without any plan whatsoever.
The argument could be strenghtened by making the stipulations more precise: as for the body – who would form it, what should it oversee, who would endorse it, etc. As for the 2-years ban idea: would the subjects be affected any more than by the mentioned nominal fines? This need to be substantiated by actual balance sheets from the companies in question.
In closing, the argument has a few serious leaps of faith, as described. Without substituting them with palpable data it will remain just a wish to be heard. Hence, the author needs to put some more effort and first better his objections, and only then try to better the rating system.