By Jasmin Gallant

July 25^th, 2019

Student Id: 3371850

Boy dies after hours of gaming

 This article is not in my opinion anything realistic. When I say so, I mean if you look closely at the way it is written, there is errors in semantics and the boy seems to have died in so many different ways in a short lap of time. And the author, a comedian, cannot be cited as a reliable source when there is no reference to other source in the article. Where did she take the info?

 The problem here is that the article presents gaming as the culprit of the death. There were workers there. Where are the parents? At 12 years old, 12 hours in a gaming session with one to watch or tell the kid to go home. The game is not the problem here. It seems to be a lack of responsibility by the surrounding adults if a death would really have been caused by this so-called gaming session.

Man Dies from Playing Xbox All Day

 Another short inconsistent article written in a brief thought. I cannot think of anything that could make me want to believe a story that has not been sourced and lacks in endorsement.

 Who was there? Is there a report? Did the man have pre-determined condition to such a case? So many questions can be raised from an article like this. I understand that thrombosis (DVT) can be caused by limited movement, but what about those in wheelchair? Or the ones paralyzed in hospital? Using medical conditions that points towards gaming is more of a subjective attempt of fear mongering than a resource-based article thoroughly thought through.

Grand Theft Auto 'therapeutic' for kids, say psychologists

 Ha? Who said that? Where, when? And written by who? From where? We do not know how the study was conducted and under what conditions. Where the children selected from different social structures?  It is very hard to believe something when you can only base your facts on a writer who would not let you know who they are or what sources the article was based from. I even made searches through google and could not find anything pointing to this matter specifically.

Strategy-based video games are good for your brain.

 I can certainly convey a more positive thought to this article than the previous ones as it contains certain links to other sources and uses more specific points towards explaining the content of the article.

 The article seems to promote gaming in such a way that one would think only positive and lacks in balance. But it seems plausible and was much better written than the ones I read before.

  It is important when pointing towards evidence to explicitly add the source to the fact. Not just another article that points to another article in an endless loop of articles. Without scientifically proven clinical evidence, one cannot be certain of the veracity of an article.

 Gaming as been here for a long time and I believe that retracting we from the real violence does promote more positive reactions. Take for example the roman empire. Would you believe their games was making people less violent? It was more of an attempt to turn the attention away from the emperor and the senate in my opinion.