GRE Argument Essay: Topic 1

[Konstantin]

Hello!
Question:

The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television — programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. — should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime time."

Answer:

Citing results of national studies and general increasing of the crime rate among underage, the author of the article concludes that it is possible to reduce it sufficiently simply by the diminution in violence on television. However, author’s argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

At first, the reporter tries to convince his readers that there is a rigid relationship between the crime rate and violence shown on television. However such bond is indistinct, because violence in real life could be caused by many reasons, which seem more convincing than bones, broken during TV shows. Such causes may include manifold political and social issues, influencing parents of these problem teenagers. Without better evidence that other conditions have been remained the same, it is just as likely that any other thing, like alcoholism, could cause brutal behavior of teenagers in the same way as television.

Secondly, the results of several national studies, insisting that children who have been seeing cruel TV shows demonstrate less violence in their daily life, are inconclusive for several reasons. Despite on nation-wide character of these studies, the poll might be confined with particular social grade or simply lack for enough respondents to be totally persuasive. At the same time, families, where very young children are permitted to see the violent shows, are often unfortunate. In such families the true causes of children’s violence are not television, but lack of care or domestic problems. Thus, I would need to know more about conditions of these studies and about respondents before I could either accept or reject objectivity of the surveys.

Finally, I also disagree with the neutrality of the survey conducted by the Observer. From its conclusion, I could understand that most of the respondents were parents, who are unable to be unbiased, thinking about their children. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how a parent could claim to maintain or increase violence on television in general and on prime-time television in particular. Perhaps, they even had not had other choices in their forms or they were simply persuaded by interrogators. As the result, it’s necessary to diversify the poll in order to receive the more dispassionate opinion.

In sum, the passage fails to provide me with strong evidence of the relationship between violence on television and violence in real life. Without the additional information indicated above, I find the argument unconvincing at best.