Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto

What Johnson finds wrong with senator Clinton's argument for controlling video games is that he is taking the wrong approach to it. Senator Clinton is spending money and doing research on these video games, when he should be spending money and doing research on other things, such as football or t.v.

Johnson shows that in statistics, the crime rate and the "thrill-seeking" crimes have decreased since these video games have come out. So, instead of the children committing these criminal acts in real life, they can do them in a video game. Also, Johnson states the fact that SAT scores have gone up, and report cards have also been higher.

Johnson says that the skills a child needs to learn how to do in real life, are those skills that they learn by playing video games. It is no longer just hand and eye coordination, but it is so much more. The children now have to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives. These are very good points that Johnson states. They are things that will go further than the video game and into their real life.

Johnson also states the facts that video games are the reason for child obesity. So, Senator Clinton could argue about that but he doesn't. But then she also says that homework is not exercise either.

Johnson just doesn't agree with the way Senator Clinton is going about the video game situation at all. So with his writing the argumentative essay should help him see the good sides of video games, and maybe make him more interested in football or t.v.

One thing I believe that would have been good in Johnson's essay would have been the fact that the parents are normally the ones who buy these video games. Every video game has a rating on the back cover saying what it includes, such as violence or sex. So, if the parents have problems with these games then why are they buying them?

-Brittany