The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The following argument states that the Super Screen produced movies saw a downfall in the footfall of the viewers of the movies, despite of the fact that the Super screen movies recieved a higher percentage of positive reviews by the movie reviewers. The assumption appears to be rash and the advertising director fails to provide appropriate justifiction for his claim.
In concluding that, a greater share of the budget for the super screen movies should be allocated towards it's marketing next year, so that it reaches a larger group of audience, the author made several unjustified assumptions, an elucidation on which seems to be quintessential.
Firstly, The author claims that in this year, less audience attended the super screen produced movies than in any other year. It seems highly irrational to agree to the same as the author fails to provide any numberical or statistical data on which this assumption is made. Maybe people attended but the facts were wrongly stated and required rectificaton.
Secondly, the author says that higher percentage of the reviews of the Super Screen movies by the movie reviewers recieved were positive and thus the quality content is not reaching its viewers properly. But the author fails to justify the authenticity of the claim as he did not mention the sources of the movie reviews and the increase in the percentage of the reviews. Maybe there was a positive review for only a couple of movies and the rest failed to impress the movie reviews. Thus, the claim stays unjustified.
Moreover, The author states that the fault lies in the lack of public awareness aspect instead of the quality aspect of the films. The claim seems to be inadmissible as their could be other factors as well, such as the release date of the movie, Maybe it was released admist of a busy work and school season instead of the holiday season which clearly is a better time to attract more audience or maybe the actors selected for the role does not have enough fan following for the regular audience to come to the theater and watch the film.
In conclusion, the considerations cited by the advertising director further need to be thought of as they seem highly irrational and inadmissible. The director should scrutinise and dig deeper one by one till her reaches a proper conclusion.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 391 350
No. of Characters: 1890 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.447 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.834 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.61 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.929 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.935 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.36 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.666 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 78, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f the budget for the super screen movies should be allocated towards its marketin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1936.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95140664962 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68609661481 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483375959079 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 595.8 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 91.7479911363 57.8364921388 159% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.285714286 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9285714286 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221507442617 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0809149496882 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0897631514565 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123469282012 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0830562514527 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.