The advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company contents that they should allocate a greater share of its budget to advertising next year as it will help in increasing ther viewship of their movies. His argument is based on the premises that the reduction in viewership has been due to the fact that people are not aware about the good qualities movies which are available. The argument contented by the advertising director seems coherent at first glance; upon scrutiny, however, one can understand that its based upon faulty reasoning and fallacious assumptions and premises.
The most glaring error in the argument is the advertising director's belief that their quality of movies is good because the percentage of positive received has increased. This argument is flawed as due to the reduction in the number of viewers, even if the number of positive reviews has remained same for the past few years the percentage of the postive reviews shall increase. Since, it cannot be justified that the number of postive reviews received also increased, hence, the advertising director's contention becomes questionable.
In addition to this, the author has not given any evidence regarding his reasoning that their content is not reaching their prospective viewers. There can be a possibility that the movies being produced by their production house, in the past year, caters to a specific audience rather than to the mass audience. Hence, in this case, instead of increasing budget on advertising, they would need to change the kind of content they are producing to increase their viewership. Thus, in the light of these fallacies, the argument becomes questionable.
Even if we ignore the lack of evidence regarding the number of positive reviews received and content not reaching their prospective viewers. One cannot ignore the fact that advertising director has not mentioned who are these movie reviewers. The quality of is great can only be validated if the review is received from a validated source. Hence, the argument becomes questionable owing to lack of information regarding the source.
Evidently, the argument has not been well thought of by the advertising director. As the argument is based on unreliable asssumptions, it cannot be believed by the readers. Thus, advertising director need to reconstruct his argument by giving evidence regarding the number of positive reviews received, why content is not reahcing their prospective viewers and ensure that the reviews are coming from a reliable source. Hence, by correcting the flaws in the argument and providing substantial evidence regarding his assumptions the argument will become reliable and accurate.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company contents that they should allocate a greater share of its budget to advertising next year as it will help in increasing ther viewship of their movies.
Error: viewship Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: ther Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: This argument is flawed as due to the reduction in the number of viewers, even if the number of positive reviews has remained same for the past few years the percentage of the postive reviews shall increase.
Error: postive Suggestion: positive
Sentence: Since, it cannot be justified that the number of postive reviews received also increased, hence, the advertising director's contention becomes questionable.
Error: postive Suggestion: positive
Sentence: As the argument is based on unreliable asssumptions, it cannot be believed by the readers.
Error: asssumptions Suggestion: assumptions
Sentence: Thus, advertising director need to reconstruct his argument by giving evidence regarding the number of positive reviews received, why content is not reahcing their prospective viewers and ensure that the reviews are coming from a reliable source.
Error: reahcing Suggestion: reaching
------------------------
sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 425 350
No. of Characters: 2224 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.54 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.233 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.775 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.091 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, regarding, so, thus, well, in addition, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2279.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36235294118 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84769463003 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.437647058824 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 711.0 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5418516179 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.611111111 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6111111111 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44444444444 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.170716402945 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0557934084341 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0576095008496 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1033583608 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398936955415 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.