Argument represented by marketing department tries to constringe on causes of fewer people attending Super Screen-produced movies last year comparatively to any other year. It put forwards unreachability of reviews to people as one of the reason even though positive reviews were received by them respectively. However, there are many evident fallacies in the argument which impair its claims to be true.
The very first assumption made by department is to relate public attendance with positive reviews by critics. This certain assumption lacks evidence. Writer does not mention anywhere whether earlier movies with positive reviews got higher percentage of viewers as well. In this case, possibility could be that although there were positive reviews but movie genre was not which interested majority. If it proves to be true that even though movies made were claimed to be good but not interested people, then it performance declined. Due to this lack of consideration of factors, relation between these two falls weak.
Another assumption made was that reviews were not reaching intended viewers. Watching movie is not a necessity but a luxury. It does not account of possibility about ticket pricing variation between last year and earlier years. Cinema halls could have hiked up the ticket prices therefore causing a decline in number of people watching movies. The reviews might be reaching people and they could be interested in watching those movies but due to high pricing, not everyone is able to afford it. Middle class section of society who were going to cinema halls last year cannot afford to pay for this leisure activity anymore. This assumption has much deeper implications. Supposing that there were other events which were hosted at same time as movie shows caused further decline in number of viewers. Since they occur occasionally, everyone might have preferred those rather than watching movies.
At last, it draws a conclusion that more money should be spent on advertising to reach people. Marketing team does not provide any information about the advertising budget in earlier years. It could be a case that budget allocated was same and viewership was still high. That comes out to be true then spending more money on viewership won't be the solution.
It should also factor in whether current advertising strategies are reachable to intended audience. In case they are reachable and still are not causing any benefit to viewership, spending more money will not solve the problem.
At last, it can be said that marketing department does not provide a compelling argument. Conclusion can be drawn that the argument lacks fair share of evidences. Many assumptions can be drawn which if true can seriously undermine its position.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 444 350
No. of Characters: 2273 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.59 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.119 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.315 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.481 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.257 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.496 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 200, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...es. Many assumptions can be drawn which if true can seriously undermine its positi...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, still, then, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25056433409 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71286001772 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498871331828 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 723.6 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.194772873 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 86.1481481481 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4074074074 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.33333333333 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220752823722 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0586723178235 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0837874755484 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113730063191 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114808876276 0.0628817314937 183% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.87 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.