Uninformed Argument of Gaming
New York Times magazine critic Sam Anderson in his online article “Just One More Game” discusses the recent topic of gaming and its impact in our society. Anderson outlines the history of games and how they have evolved into meaningless distractions which he refers to as “stupid games” (Anderson par.3). He claims there is no point or value in gaming, but he does not explain or show evidence to the negative side of gaming. Due to Anderson’s lack of logical reasoning his argument is unconvincing and ineffective.
It is through this shortage of logical evidence and incoherence that Anderson disproves his own argument of “stupid games” (par.3) affecting society. By titling his article “Just One More Game” he implies, that gaming is compulsive. Yet he does not give any demographic, numerical or statistical evidence that gaming is making others compulsive. Nor does he show how it affects society, if that was even the case. In turn his argument is unconvincing to the reader.
Anderson’s argument that games are a distraction is only an uninformed claim because he fails to provide factual evidence. He states “games are much easier to develop and easier to distribute
…show more content…
When he obliviously states “Chess, you might say, is the king of stupid games: the tide line where stupid games meet genius” (Anderson par.13). Just from his use of language he makes his claim weak by using, “might”. He initially claims that chess is “stupid”, then he implies that the players are geniuses. Contradicting himself because a game like Chess can develop players to become smart. Later in his writing he also implies that more recent games require “more intuitive and intimate motions” (Anderson par.19), which require for players to learn things from gaming. In result his ill planned argument has no cohesion in his logical