| |
| |
Both the lecture and reading hold different positions, respectively, on the issue of whether First-person action game is harmful to children or not. The lecture's argument is around many points that are in direct contrast to the materials in the reading passage. First off, the reading mentions that playng video games deteriorates healthy lifestyle because it is addictive. However, the lecture refutes this by claiming that such addictions are not blame to video games. This is attributed to the reason that everything people enjoy, such as reading or watching TV, could be addictive. Also, the lecture points out obsessive tendency of some children appears not because of video games, but because their own nature. In other words, they easily become addictive to anything besides video games. Also, the reading claims that violent video games trigger/ lead to aggressive tendencies with supporting experiement results. On the other hand, the lecture rebuffs this by arguing that overall violent crime rate is in decline although video games have got popularity since 30 years ago. Furthermore, he says there is a possibility that video games serve an oulet. This means playing games might release their stress. In this respect, it is evident that playing games is not hazardous. Lastly, the reading passage says that children waste a large amount of time playing video games that could be used more constructively. In contrast, lecture counters this point by claiming that video games have positive aspects. According to a study, video games have a correlation with intelligence. In detail, during playing games, children acquire problem-solving ability and fast reaction times which is helpful in everyday life. In conclusion, the reading passage presents three aspects with regard to playing games, However, the lecture's argument make it clear that none of these points justify the reading's suggestion. |