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 memo states that the lower the public to welcome the Super Screen movies is explicable in terms of the public's lack of awareness. So he recommends allocating a greater share of his company's budget next year to reach the public through advertising.
Although the premises seem to be tenable and plausible at first glance more scrutiny would shed light on their weakness and it turns out to be untenable as it is in that the argument rests on a number of premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The argument hints at a report but the veracity of the report is under question. The question is whether the report has been prepared under fair circumstances? The population who take part in this report is sufficient or not? To put it in a nutshell, the report has been carried under a standard circumstance or not. Maybe the number of who are not fond of Super-Screen movies are more considered in this report. Nevertheless, the number of people who like the Super-Screen movie is more than the reports has portrayed.
The author of the mem has pointed out to the increasing the number of positive reviews. The question spring to mind is whether the reviewers who take part in the review are impartial? In other words, maybe they are beneficiary to back the Super Screen movies. In other words, the value of their reviews is under question unless the even-handedness of their reviews will be proved.
The last but not least flaw regarding the argument is that the advertisement does not guarantee that the number of people who are not fond of Super-Screen movies becomes more interested. The question is whether the advertisement is effective or not? In other words, the effectiveness of advertisement has not been addressed in the meme. A further study is needed in order to prove the effectiveness of the advertisement. Maybe the issue not worth the investment. It should be addressed by the author of the argument.
Having scrutinized all the premises a plausible conclusion that can be drawn is there are some question having been ignored by the author which the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise. At the current time, there is room for improvement and common sense tells us that this recommendation should be taken into account.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1865 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.698 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.773 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 84 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.905 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.909 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.381 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...been prepared under fair circumstances? The population who take part in this report...
^^^
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[3]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'not the least'.
Suggestion: not the least
...r reviews will be proved. The last but not least flaw regarding the argument is that the...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, may, nevertheless, regarding, so, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1900.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 397.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78589420655 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8427587102 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458438287154 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 585.0 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.9221393603 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.4761904762 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9047619048 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.85714285714 5.70786347227 50% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217168296104 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659784320906 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.079773328811 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0999565490132 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.077077047204 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.6 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.