Argument Analysis 9- "Movie Ratings"

First of all who is the MPAA anyway? Who is this mysterious group of poeple that we have deemed capable of giving accurate and unbiased movie ratings to the country? Ever since I was a kid my parents always did research before taking my brother, sister, and me to the movies simply because ratings cannot be trusted. Since different people have different ethics and morals is it really conceiveable that we can have an across-the-board standard rating system?

As much as I agree with this article I completely dissagree with how it is written. By throwing in all these rediculous words with way too many syllables, it confuses the reader and interrupts the flow of the argument. There are ways of explaining things at a higher literary level without letting the reader get frustrated. Obviously they are catering to a certain audience but I can't help to think that if the vocabulary was slightly altered it might appeal to a greater number of people.

Despite the vocabulary, I like the template they use to formulate the argument. It is clearly defined with the thesis in the beginning with following supporting evidence. Although the argument is clearly stated the whole article lacks any emotion. There is no passion or voice that is apparent other than the style of higher level literary writers. This may be due to the fact that the debate was a collaboration of several people so individual feelings where blended with those of their fellow writers.

Although I agree with the article and for the point they are trying to prove, it was poorly executed. The format was of a typical argumentative style but the reason for wanting to change the movie rating system was lost in a jungle of overboard vocabulary.