According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.
The argument is flawed for a numerous reasons. Primarily, the assumption that the quality of the movies is good, is unjustified. Because, the quality of the movies may be bad, the argument that the Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget to advertise does not help with the awareness of the public.
Citing the report, the author assumes that only a fewer people attend Super Screen produced movies in the last year than in any other year. However, considering that the survey collected the data from a selected group of people, the validity ad integrity of the report is questionable. For example, if a survey is done on a group of people where in the percentage of attending a Super Screen movie is 10% and in another set of people, the attendance is 80%, the survey done on these two groups altogether can have around 75% . Comparing this with the past years' percentage, however, the past year's percentage may be greater. Therefore, allocating a greater share for advertising even if people are already aware about Super Screen movies is not appreciable. To strengthen this argument, the survey should be conducted on the majority of the people who attended movies.
Another assumption is that the percentage of positive reviews by reviewers increased during the past year. Despite assuming the fact that the report was conducted on a large populace, the quality of the movie cannot be determined by the increased percentage of positive reviews by the movie reviewers. For one, there is no information about whether the positive reviews are for the Super Screen movies or for the Normal Screen movies. If the Normal Screen movies had all the positive reviews , the quality of the Super Screen movies cannot be determined. Secondly, there is no information about the negative reviews rated by the reviewers. If there are more negative reviews than the positive reviews, then the quality of the Super Screen movie is bad. Therefore, increasing the budget for advertising may not help the public, to be aware of a "bad" movie.
To strengthen the argument, information regarding whether the positive reviews were given for the Super Screen movies and also regarding the negative reviews of the Super Screen movies should be given. Building upon the lack of information about the reviews, the argument assumes that the positive reviews come from various persons. Despite assuming the fact that the reviews are for the Super Screen movies, the reviews may have come from a small set of people biased towards Super Screen movies. This, however does not ensure the quality of the Super Screen movie. For example, if 10 people vote 100 times for the Super Screen movie, the number of positive reviews will be more. Therefore, increasing the budget for advertising may not help .
Because the argument assumes about the nature of the reviews and the report, the quality of the Super Screen movie may not be determined . Hence, the argument that increasing in advertising a possible "bad" movie is invalid.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 503 350
No. of Characters: 2447 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.736 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.865 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.491 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.958 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.614 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.544 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 39, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'reason'?
Suggestion: reason
The argument is flawed for a numerous reasons. Primarily, the assumption that the qua...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...help with the awareness of the public. Citing the report, the author assumes th...
^^^^
Line 2, column 173, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ther year. However, considering that the survey collected the data from a selecte...
^^
Line 2, column 529, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...wo groups altogether can have around 75% . Comparing this with the past years perc...
^^
Line 2, column 561, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ound 75% . Comparing this with the past years percentage, however, the past years per...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 597, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ast years percentage, however, the past years percentage may be greater. Therefore, a...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ty of the people who attended movies. Another assumption is that the percentag...
^^^^
Line 5, column 384, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...reen movies had all the positive reviews , the quality of the Super Screen movies ...
^^
Line 5, column 735, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...may not help the public, to be aware of a 'bad' movie. To strengthen t...
^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e Super Screen movies should be given. Building upon the lack of information ab...
^^^^
Line 8, column 62, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
... the budget for advertising may not help . Because the argument assumes abou...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... budget for advertising may not help . Because the argument assumes about the n...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 142, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...Super Screen movie may not be determined . Hence, the argument that increasing in ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2543.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05566600398 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6602018903 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.355864811133 0.468620217663 76% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5932918738 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.958333333 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9583333333 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.83333333333 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 9.0 5.15768463074 174% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 13.0 5.25449101796 247% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.486254672559 0.218282227539 223% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.170307532215 0.0743258471296 229% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124974210937 0.0701772020484 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227759040196 0.128457276422 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131060451522 0.0628817314937 208% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.27 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.