"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 author of the memo provides several pieces of evidence in support of Super Screen allocating more share of its budget next year in order to propagate more of their movies to the public via advertisement. These pieces of evidence, if not all, entail that Super Screen witnessed a declined number of people attending Super Screen produced movies, and yet, that the percentage of positive reviews of Super Screen movies by movie reviewers increased last year. Therefore, it is allegedly believed that the extra advertising, hoping to reach more potential viewers, would tout good reviews and increase their awareness of Super Screen’s good movies. However, several questions which the argument is predicated on need to be addressed before such recommendation can be adopted and implemented.
The most pressing question that Super Screen needs to inquire is whether the decline of attending movies was a universal trend that transpired across all the theaters past year. If so and actually more people went to the theater to watch Super-Screen produced movies, then Super Screen might have a greater likelihood to shoot up its viewership by promoting the movies themselves or by touting that going to the theater is pretty entertaining and engaging than by attributing much of its budget to advertise their reviews.
The second equally important question comes down to the actual number of positive reviews from the recent survey. Provided that the Super Screen movies received one-star review last year and received two-star review this year, the slightly increased reviewing would probably incite the viewers little and would not stir up their desire to go to the theater to watch the Super screen movies. Continuing producing good-quality movies might be a more efficacious gimmick to advertise their movies than to simply promote their good reviews. Therefore, knowing that the good reviews increased is not informative until we know the actual number of those reviews so as to make proper appraisal.
What ensues centers around the question of the relationship between the viewers and the reviewers cited in the memo. Distributing a survey reaching to the actual intended and target audiences, Super Screen Company could better determine if reviewers’ preferences would be analogous to those of viewers, if movie reviews would sway audiences’ decision to watch a movie, and if movie reviews could be sole indicator of movies’ success or not. Super Screen Company, for instance, needs to take into account if Super Screen Company last year switched its production by changing popular move genres, such as action, horror, or comedy, into their less sought-after counterparts, such as melodramas or documentaries, which, however, might be widely hailed by movie reviewers.
Assuming that the answers to all the previous questions are finished and can give credence to the author’s conclusion, one last critical question remains to be addressed. Is the movie review by critics really a sound method for the Super Screen Company to orchestrate their advertising strategies? Audiences might not bother reading all the reviews and might just resort to reviews that are most liked or commented on. Therefore, if the viewers zeroed in on the most popular reviews that loathed Super Screen movies and disregarded a small potation of positive reviews about Super Screen movies, the likelihood that promoting positive reviews about the Company will succeed is pretty slim.
All told, the author’s claim germane to touting positive reviews to boost the Company’s viewership deserves further probing and analysis via asking some apropos and exigent questions first. The company needs to pay meticulous attention to actual numbers cited in the memo, both of viewership and of positive reviews. The company should also probe into the relationship that movie reviewers have with the Company’s target audience. Last but not least, by assaying the nature and the characteristics of move reviews, the company could acquire a more insightful and nuanced perspective into their proposed strategy cited in the memo.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not exactly right on the point. Here goes a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 647 350
No. of Characters: 3391 1500
No. of Different Words: 283 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.043 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.241 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.63 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 281 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 201 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.81 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.806 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 497, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ear. Therefore, it is allegedly believed that the extra advertising, hoping to re...
^^
Line 4, column 657, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...know the actual number of those reviews so as to make proper appraisal. What ensues ce...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, really, second, so, then, therefore, as to, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3501.0 2260.96107784 155% => OK
No of words: 647.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41112828439 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04343084457 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82559125571 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 298.0 204.123752495 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460587326121 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 1065.6 705.55239521 151% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.8880343384 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.714285714 119.503703932 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8095238095 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04761904762 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444800812072 0.218282227539 204% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148556056195 0.0743258471296 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.122009411003 0.0701772020484 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270826238799 0.128457276422 211% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.085483543961 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.69 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 170.0 98.500998004 173% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.