"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.
The argument that the Super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to advertising as in spite of increase in percentage of positive review fewer poeple attended these movies. The argument is flawed as it draws conclusion based on vague and ambiguous statements. Moreover, the author does not provide any substantial data to prove its claims.
The first lacuna in the arguement is that the author has stated there is increase in the percentage of positive reviews but fails to provide the exact percentage. It might be possible that the reviews for Super screen produced movies have always been bad and there is small positive change in the reviews which certainly would not attract much audience. Also, the author claims that fewer people turned out for the movie inspite of increase in positive review from the past year but fails to accomodate the stats that would have strengthened this claim. For instance, there might be fewer movies ealire and people did not have much option and noewdays with the boom in film industry and shorter production time they have many choices which might have resulted in fewer viewers attending Super produced movies.
The second lacuna in the author claim is that the assumption of author that more positive the review more than the audience but fails to take in to account the subject of the film. Foe example, Documentory movies are most rated movies but still draws little audience, on the other hand entertaining movies with glamour quotient attracts more public. So, the correlation made by author regarding rating and vieworship suffers majorly. This could have been strengthend if the author has provided data supporting its claim which actuallly shows the realtionship between the positive review and audience.
Finally, the argument assumes that lack of awareness of good quality movies as despite of good review less people going for that movie but does not account for key factor that could have resulted in less viewers. Moreover, A good qaulity movie is an abtract term it could have different meaning for different people.
In conclusion, the author claims are based on ambiguous and incomplpete data. This could have been bolstered, if the author has provided statictics and analogy backing its claim. As of state, the argument is unwarranted
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The argument that the Super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to advertising as in spite of increase in percentage of positive review fewer poeple attended these movies.
Error: poeple Suggestion: people
Sentence: The first lacuna in the arguement is that the author has stated there is increase in the percentage of positive reviews but fails to provide the exact percentage.
Error: arguement Suggestion: argument
Sentence: Also, the author claims that fewer people turned out for the movie inspite of increase in positive review from the past year but fails to accomodate the stats that would have strengthened this claim.
Error: inspite Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: stats Suggestion: state
Error: accomodate Suggestion: accommodate
Sentence: For instance, there might be fewer movies ealire and people did not have much option and noewdays with the boom in film industry and shorter production time they have many choices which might have resulted in fewer viewers attending Super produced movies.
Error: ealire Suggestion: easier
Error: noewdays Suggestion: needs
Sentence: So, the correlation made by author regarding rating and vieworship suffers majorly.
Error: vieworship Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: majorly Suggestion: major
Sentence: This could have been strengthend if the author has provided data supporting its claim which actuallly shows the realtionship between the positive review and audience.
Error: actuallly Suggestion: actually
Error: realtionship Suggestion: relationship
Error: strengthend Suggestion: strengthen
Sentence: Moreover, A good qaulity movie is an abtract term it could have different meaning for different people.
Error: abtract Suggestion: attract
Error: qaulity Suggestion: quality
Sentence: In conclusion, the author claims are based on ambiguous and incomplpete data.
Error: incomplpete Suggestion: incomplete
Sentence: This could have been bolstered, if the author has provided statictics and analogy backing its claim.
Error: statictics Suggestion: statistics
------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
here goes a sample:
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: 16 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1907 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.397 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.507 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.593 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...till draws little audience, on the other hand entertaining movies with glamour qu...
^^
Line 7, column 104, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...uality movies as despite of good review less people going for that movie but does no...
^^^^
Line 7, column 201, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun viewers is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... key factor that could have resulted in less viewers. Moreover, A good qaulity movie...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, still, then, for instance, in conclusion, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1959.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14173228346 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45801610955 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48031496063 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 595.8 705.55239521 84% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1879543077 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.4375 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8125 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.3125 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289711653004 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.088357191269 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853218448397 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146749993561 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0939798030649 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.