Informational Text Focus
Analyzing Arguments: Generalizations and Faulty Reasoning Persuasive writers try to convince you
to think or act in a certain way. Sometimes a writer’s argument contains fallacies, or mistakes in logical
thinking. Here are some types of faulty reasoning:






A hasty generalization is a broad, general statement or conclusion that is made on the basis of
only one or two observations. Some generalizations (such as “All adult human beings walk
upright”) are valid (true), but a hasty generalization is a fallacy.
False cause and effect occurs when one event is said to cause another event because the two
events happened in sequence. (“As soon as I started jogging, my grades improved.”)
Name-calling uses labels to attack a person who holds an opposing view, instead of giving
reasons or evidence to attack the view itself. (“Computer geeks are out of touch with the real
world.”)
Either-or fallacy assumes that there are only two possible choices or solutions (usually
extremes), even though there may be many. (“I have to get a driver’s license, or I’ll lose all my
friends.”)
Stereotyping gives all members of a group the same, usually undesirable, characteristics. A
stereotype assumes that everyone in that group is alike. (“Teenagers are very self-centered.”)
Build Background The debate over the effects of video-game violence has been a hot-button issue since
the early 1990s. Some people say that playing violent video games leads to an increase in violent behavior,
while others say there is no connection between video games and real life. Several scientific studies support
each side of the argument.

Read with a Purpose Read this editorial to learn about some specific issues in the debate about
whether violent video games can lead to violent behavior.

Target Real Violence, Not Video Games
by Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert

We live in a society saturated with real-life violence—violence that is difficult to legislate away.
So it is sadly not surprising when legislators attack fictional and fantasy images of violence
portrayed in media products instead of dealing with actual crime.
In 2005, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law a bill that limits the sale of graphically
violent video games to minors. Specifically, it is now illegal for anyone in the state to sell or rent a
“violent” video game to anyone under the age of 18.
At first blush, measures such as the one signed by the governor appear to protect the state’s
children—admittedly a noble effort.
Games like “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” clearly are offensive and any reasonable parent
would not let his or her child play the game.
But the new Illinois law and a similar federal measure proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
of New York amount to little more than flawed attempts by lawmakers to create a false sense of
protection and security at the expense of the constitutional rights of the creators, manufacturers,
and users of video games for entertainment purposes—and ultimately at the expense of the state’s
taxpayers.
What is even more troubling is that legislators have enacted this measure despite clear
precedent that such bills violate settled constitutional law.
In fact, every law restricting violent video games has met with the same fate: a federal court striking it
down as unconstitutional.
As Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Chicago—the
federal appellate court covering Illinois—made clear in a case striking down an Indianapolis ordinance
restricting minors’ access to video games, the interactive nature of games does not make them any
less deserving of First Amendment protection than other forms of media such as books and movies.
Writing in American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, Judge Posner observed that
“[a]ll literature (here broadly defined to include movies, television and other photographic media and
popular as well as highbrow1 literature) is interactive; the better it is, the more interactive.”
Legislators fully recognize they would face certain peril if they tried to ban books, movies, or TV
programs, so instead they take on a new technology and try to convince their constituents that graphic
depictions of violence in an interactive format somehow make it more harmful to minors.
The flaw in that reasoning is that no one has ever been able to prove through independent
research that video games are harmful to children or to show that they cause violence.
There have been some contrived laboratory experiments that purport to show a correlation between
viewing video games and increased aggression in some people, but aggression is not the same thing as
violence, and correlation does not equal causation.2
In order for any law to restrict the First Amendment rights of citizens in this country, by barring certain
content, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest. Provable harm to children would
probably satisfy that burden, but no such evidence exists, and that’s one reason measures like the one
signed by Governor Blagojevich fail when challenged in court.
Gang members don’t commit drive-by shootings simply because they played a video game, nor do
school kids shoot others simply because they played a video game.
The factors influencing such violent acts are far more complex than that. Hundreds of thousands of
kids who play video games, the vast majority of which do not portray violence, will never assault, attack,
or otherwise harm anyone.
Federal courts in St. Louis and in the state of Washington have adopted Judge Posner’s reasoning in
striking down similar laws in those jurisdictions.
Blagojevich and the Illinois legislature share the responsibility for enacting measures that violate the
Constitution, but the citizens of Illinois will share the expense of defending these invalid measures as
inevitable court challenges move forward.

Informational Focus
Faulty Reasoning What kind of faulty reasoning do the authors use in this paragraph?

Informational Focus
Faulty Reasoning What form of faulty reasoning are the authors critiquing in these two
paragraphs?

Informational Focus
Faulty Reasoning What is the false cause-and-effect relationship suggested in this paragraph?

Build Background Mortal Kombat was first released for arcades in 1992 and for home game consoles in
1993. The game’s violence outraged both parents and politicians. As a result, the Entertainment Software
Ratings Board (ESRB) was created in 1994. The ESRB rates interactive entertainment software (video games)
by their age appropriateness. For example, almost all of Mortal Kombat’s sequels are rated “Mature,” which
means that no one under seventeen can purchase them.

Read with a Purpose Read this article to discover another writer’s opinion of video games.

Harmless Fun?
from Weekly Reader

Say what you want, but in Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, the latest version of the wildly popular
Mortal Kombat video game, the character Taven’s signature move is known as the “Ring of
Hatred.” That’s when he pounds the ground with his fist, creating a shockwave of fire. If he
executes it just right, he will obliterate his opponent, leaving small bits of flesh, blood and internal
organs splattered across the screen.
And Taven is one of the good guys.
You can see from this example that in the world of violent video games, players can channel
their aggressions and take on virtual foes, with instant and typically graphic results. Die-hard video
game addicts will tell you it is all harmless fun—at worst, a way to let off steam. But don’t be so
sure.
In 1996, M. E. Ballard and J. R. Weist reported in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology that
playing these kinds of games actually increased blood pressure in some players. Studies by P. J.
Lynch in 1994 found that in aggressive children these games increased the flow of
adrenaline.1 These two studies prove that video games cause aggression.
Can it be true, as profit-hungry game manufacturers claim, that virtual fights act as a
substitute for actual fights? Are they a way to give a player his or her “adrenaline fix” harmlessly?
Not necessarily. Researchers Craig A. Anderson, PhD, of Iowa State University, and Karen E. Dill,
PhD, of Lenoir-Rhyne College, gathered 210 college students and had them play either a violent or
a non-violent video game. Afterward, they had each student “punish” an opponent with a loud blast
of noise. The students who played the violent game blasted the noise for a longer period of time
than those who played the non-violent one. In addition, Anderson and Dill examined the video
game habits of another 227 college students who had exhibited actual aggressiveness. Anderson
and Dill concluded, in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, that violent video games prime the brain for aggressive thoughts. In the longer term,
they found, violent video games get players used to using violent means to solve their
problems.
“The player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and
more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise,” said Anderson.
Who is most exposed to and damaged by these terrifying scripts? Children are. A study by the
Kaiser Family Foundation found 83 percent of children between ages 8 and 18 have a video game
console in their homes, and 40 percent had a console in their bedroom. And while the government
began in 2000 to crack down on the marketing of violent video games to children, results are not
so great. A 2007 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission found that out of 20 games with a
rating of “M” (for Mature), 16 were advertised on Web sites popular among children. This must
mean that young children are playing and learning from these hideous games without adult
supervision.
Most grown-ups and young adults can distinguish between real violence and the virtual kind.
They know where to draw the line. But what about those who don’t? Children are still learning the
boundaries of good behavior, and the do’s and don’ts of problem solving. They are the real-life
victims of video game manufacturers.
I’m not saying that violent video games are the root of all aggression in the world. But I don’t
see any evidence that the blood-soaked citizens of the screen world are doing anything to make
the real world a better place.


Informational Focus
Generalizations The writer makes a generalization in this paragraph. Explain why this is a hasty
generalization.

Informational Focus
Faulty Reasoning What do the studies by Ballard and Weist and Lynch prove?

Informational Focus
Generalizations How many students took part in these studies? Were there enough on which to
base a generalization?
Practicing the Standards
Informational Text and Vocabulary

Which of the following is a generalization?
o “Games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas are clearly offensive and any reasonable parent
would not let his or her child play the game.”
o “And Taven is one of the good guys.”
o “Afterward, they had each student ‘punish’ an opponent with a loud blast of noise.”
o “That’s when he pounds the ground with his fist, creating a shockwave of fire.”

Which
o
o
o
o

Which type of faulty reasoning is illustrated in the following: “I’m not saying that violent video
games are the root of all aggression in the world. But I don’t see any evidence that the bloodsoaked citizens of the screen world are doing anything to make the real world a better place.”
o Name-calling
o False cause and effect
o Either-or fallacy
o Stereotyping
of the following best summarizes Richards and Calvert’s main argument?
Video games teach important skills.
Legislators should stop trying to limit sales of video games and focus on real crime instead.
Video games do not cause people to act violently toward one another.
Studies showing video games cause violence are correct.