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 author of the argument has cited that, according to marketing department of Super Screen Movie Production Company, the number of people attending their movies have declined. And for that director of the production company wants to invest more budget in advertisement of the movies they are producing. The argument might appear logical at first glance. However, critical analysis of the justification provided by the director highlighted many querries. Therefore, the premises in their current form are not cogent and the argument is fire with unwarranted assumptions which makes it more susceptible to attacks.
On the first facet, the author has not provided any evidence for the reports given by marketing department of the production company. He has simply mentioned that the number of viewers have declined. There can be questions, how many theaters are showing movies produced by Super Screen? How many screens are allotted for the movies? How many shows are there for the movies? The author has failed to answer these quetions which can play a vital role in knowing the root cause for the decrease in number of viewers.
Secondly, the director of Super Screen Production Company has cited that reviews for their movies are positive. But, has failed to consider the facts, how many people are reviewing thier movies? Does the interest of people have changed over the year? Maybe the genere of the movies they are producing is not very popular. Maybe the cast they are having for their movies is not followed by people. If the author had given the thought and had analyzed the problem meticulously then he/she could have arrived at a proper solution to the problem.
Additionally, the director has mentioned to increase its budget share for advertising their movies through out the public. The author has not metioned anything about the budget for previous years. If they have reduced the budget in the last year and because of that they have noticed dwindle in number of viewers than there is a possibility that increase in budget will help the production company. But, is the budget is same from past few years and only decline has happened in the past year than there might other problems that are relucting viewers to attend movies. Therefore, the author has naively arrived to the conclusion that increasing the budget will help in increase in number of viewers.
In the crux, the author's argument is based on unsubstantiated presumptions. The author should have provided the evidence for the reports given by marketing department and should have analyzed the problem pragmatically. However, the author has failed to examine the facts thereby rendering the argument indefensible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- No
argument 2 -- No
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2210 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.011 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.537 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.64 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.493 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: THROUGH_OUT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'throughout'?
Suggestion: throughout
...dget share for advertising their movies through out the public. The author has not metioned...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... number of viewers. In the crux, the authors argument is based on unsubstantiated pr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2269.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15681818182 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61878840038 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434090909091 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 704.7 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.6990434678 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.76 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.68 5.70786347227 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253577124862 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796422673944 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0859340623964 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14347690291 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0724126844539 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.