RA Source for paper C

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

This paper is heavily informative and research based, so it doesn't include much of the writer's personal views except as research rather than opinion. That makes it so that the paper can be used be meant for a large audience, whether it's people who are decidedly against it or people who are just curious about the topic.

It starts out of course with an appeal to ethos by the bio detailing the writer's extensive schooling and work on the subject. Even the picture could be seen as an appeal to ethos, because it gives you a face behind the words, and he clearly looks intelligent, like a Professor.

Then there's the introduction which gives a bit of background to the debate. The body labels several myths and then follows them with facts. This provides an easy way for people to read the paper. While it can be said that the facts are just facts and not one-sided, the paper itself is clearly one-sided because there are no myths from the other side that are addressed. The list only includes misconceptions saying generally that violence in video games isn't that bad, but doesn't give any examples of myths on the side of why violence IS so bad. I think that is probably the paper's biggest weakness, that it does not sufficiently address counter arguments.

Of course, after the myth-fact section there is a part labeled "unanswered questions" which shows in a way humility on the writers part by him pointing out that he doesn't know everything. This helps to address counterarguments but is still insufficient. I think those reading the paper who have conflicting views with his would see the lack of a rounded argument. However, readers coming to the paper merely out of curiosity would probably walk away very much on his side.