essay - GMAT: Argument 28

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.

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Answer:
The author asserts that the recent increase of crimes attributes to the resent increase of violent scenes in movies, and then some corrective actions are required. He proposes two concrete actions: to establish a board censoring the violent scenes, and to limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Besides, he sees that the legislators are not concerned about this issue on the ground that similar legislations were lately rejected. Although his reasoning is not completely imperfect, it contains several fallacies, thereby failing to convince the readers.

First of all, although he attributes the cause of the recent increase of crimes in the cities to the increase of violent scenes in movies, this argument is apparently incorrect. This is a typical "because this happens after that, that is the reason of this" logic. I mean, the true cause of the increased crime rate may be for another reason such as an influx of immigrants or surging unemployment rate. To make the argument convincing, the author should show the direct link between the increased crimes and the increased violent scenes.

Then, assuming that the violence scene is a direct cause of recent increase crimes, we can find an error in the policy of prohibiting young audiences from violent movies. If the author wants to limit admission to young people, he needs to show clear evidence that young people are source of recent crimes. Without doing that, it's unreasonable and unfair to prohibit only young people from seeing movies. This is a kind of discrimination.

Finally, the author contends that the legislators are not concerned about the issue, but this claim is unwarranted. I mean, the fact that certain legislation couldn't attain majority doesn't necessarily mean that the legislators are not concerned about it. The legislation may have had a serious flaw such as violation of constitutional right or discriminational aspect. Then, blaming the legislators for the reason is unreasonable.

In conclusion, the author fails to make its argument convincing for some reasons that I mentioned above. To strengthen the argument, the author should at least show a direct link between the recent increase of crimes and the recent increase of violent scenes in movies, for instance, by conducting scientific human behavioral research to identify the reason of increased crimes.