Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Readings - Essay Example

There are countless similar occasions in the article where statements have been made without evidence. Anderson’s article is more of an essay than an argument since throughout the article, he has just expressed personal opinions without providing evidence for them to enhance the credibility of his argument. Anderson has basically used the article as a means to express his personal opinions. Basically, the article is a reflection on the author’s personal experiences that have led him to develop certain views that he has shared in an organized way. This makes the article informative rather than argumentative. Although the article’s credibility is little because of the lack of references, the views Anderson has shared are sensible and seem to be coming from a learned and experienced author. I particularly agree with the fact that playing video games may be one of the risk factors that play a role in making the youth criminals, yet it is too subtle and ineffective a factor to have such a large negative effect on the psychology of the children as to make them killers. One factor that is particularly out of place in the article is that although Anderson has cited no study, he has gone to such lengths as comparing different studies and the underlying factors as sample sizes, as he says, “Why have different researchers found different results? Well, part of the problem is that many studies have used a sample size that is much too small to produce consistent results” (Anderson cited in Ramage, Bean, and Johnson 447).

Greenberg started his argument with a strong point saying that Yee had Sen. Leland Yee did not have robust grounds to restrict children’s access to violent video games since it was essentially an outcome of the ban on substance abuse which in no way compares to video games. I find Greenberg’s argument very convincing that violent books and movies do not provide the audiences with a room to respond whereas violent games do, but the same power of interactivity that the video games provide the audiences could be held as a strong reason why they should be banned. Although Greenberg’s example was good, in effect, it counteracted his argument that was in favor of the expression of violence in video games, though the examples Greenberg has given regarding how video games enhance the critical analysis and decision-making skills of the audiences are entirely convincing. These examples also indicate the potential ways in which violent games serve as mediums of free expression for the players, thus providing Greenberg with a firm basis for his argument.

One thing that makes Greenberg’s article superior to Anderson’s is that Greenberg has not indicated studies anywhere and accordingly he did not need to cite them, whereas Anderson’s article was mostly based on the results of past studies without mentioning any in particular. Greenberg’s examples in support of his argument were such that they did not require much citation or referencing, and the examples were plentiful as well. When the examples did require referencing, they were included. For example, when Greenberg discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling that school boards are not allowed to ban books in the libraries of the schools even if they are accessible outside the schools, Greenberg did include the reference. Another factor that makes Greenberg’s article a better argument than that of Anderson is that Greenberg has also discussed the consequences of imposing a ban on violent video games, starting with these words, “If California’s law is upheld, far more onerous measures will likely appear all over the country” (Greenberg cited in Ramage, Bean, and Johnson 456), thus considering the effects of not considering his proposal. However, he has not discussed the cons of removing the ban on video games, which if he had, would have made the argument even stronger.

Concluding, an analysis of both articles suggests that Greenberg’s article is a much stronger argument than that of Anderson, whose article is more of an essay than an argument. Anderson’s article draws examples from unmentioned studies whereas Greenberg does cite when discussing an external example and the evidence is very credible. Greenberg’s article does not acknowledge the counterargument. Anderson’s essay is informative whereas Greenberg’s essay is informative as well as argumentative. Overall, Greenberg’s article is a better argument essay than Anderson’s article.