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.