My first proposed article “Violence in Video games Labeling Act” focused on the logical fallacy, seemed to have a stronger argument than the article, Playing with Violence. The reason for the first article seems stronger, due to the clear facts that California representatives presented to consumers. Oklahoma's first representative, William Fourkiller, tried to increase video game taxes by 1% on all violent and nonviolent videos, which, in my opinion, was clearly considered unconstitutional. Therefore, Baca and Wolf, representatives of California, decided to initiate the same concept, except they did it in a more political matter. Plus, from a non-gaming perspective, it seems harmless enough even from the player's perspective, it's not likely to change your life one way or the other. However, if you don't treat it with respect, it deserves the respect that all films, music and literature enjoy. So, therefore, the logical fallacies in both of these articles, in my opinion, were a deception. In California, representatives use software to lure the consumer by selling the software with the intent of still increasing the tax by 1%. Considering Oklahoma's representatives simply wanted to increase violent or non-violent video games, which I believe, consumers would not commit to purchasing any of its video games. Additionally, the article using video games with violence attempted to link bad behavior when playing this game. The logical fallacies in this article also demonstrate deception. The study that was conducted never found any clear fact that playing video games leads to violent behavior, so the people of Pennsylvania may be misled by the State Government Commission's Advisory Committee on Violence Prevention. In my opinion, I also believe that if a person already has violent behavior, they play video games