27.       Based upon a correlation between increases in movie violence and crime rates in

cities, the author argues that to combat crime in cities we must either censor movies that

contain violence or prohibit people who are under 21 years of age from viewing them.

The author further argues that because legislators failed to pass a bill calling for these

alternatives, they are not concerned with the problem of crime in our cities. The author's

reasoning is unconvincing, since it suffers from two critical problems.

      To begin with, the author's solution to the problem rests on the claim that

portrayals of violence in movies are the cause of crime in the cities. However, the

evidence offered is insufficient to support this claim. A mere positive correlation

between movie violence and city crime rates does not necessarily prove a causal

relationship, in addition, all other prospective causes of city crime such as poverty or

unemployment must be ruled out. As it stands, the author's solution to the problem is

based upon an oversimplified analysis of the issue.

      Another problem with the argument is that the author's solution assumes that only

persons under 21 years of age are adversely affected by movie violence. Ultimately, this

means that the author is committed to the view that, for the most part, the perpetrators

of crime in cities are juveniles under 21. Lacking evidence to support this view, the

author's solution cannot be taken seriously.

      In conclusion, the best explanation of the failure of the bill calling for the actions

proposed in this argument is that most legislators were capable of recognizing the

simplistic analysis of the problem upon which these actions are based. Rather than

providing a demonstration of a lack of concern about this issue, the legislators' votes

reveal an understanding of the complexities of this problem and an unwillingness to

accept simple solutions.