"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 readily claims that the decrease in the number of viewers to the super screen department movies is due to less allocation of budget in company's advertisement unit. As stated in this way, the argument lacks vitality and several key factors on which it can be evaluated. The author is trying to manipulate the provided information and is distorting the view of the readers.To justify his reason the author argues that even though their quality of movies have been good in the last year, they haven't been able to get enough viewers due to lack of advertisement and public awareness about them. However, a critical analysis of the argument states that the argument is unsubstantiated and incomplete.
Firstly, the author claims that the report form the marketing department of the company depicts that the number of viewers have decreased in the recent year however, there is no detail of the report such as - what was the count on weekdays, what was the count on weekends or during festivals or in what time of the year were the movies released. Without a complete answer to these following questions, we cannot trust the source of this argument and it provides very little credibility as a reader. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing and relevant if the data was portrayed correctly.
The author readily claims that though the percentage of positive reviews for the movies have improved, they have not been able to gather audience because people were not aware of them. This again is a weak argument with little solid ground. Though the reviews have been good from the critics, the author does not focus on the content of the movies displayed. Some movies could be good for the critics but if its too turgid for the normal audience, then it would not be able to attract much attention. If the argument had provided the genre and the type of movies they had released for the audience in the recent year, this would have been more convincing.
Finally, the author believes that more advertisement could help reach a bigger audience and would solve the problem but a careful scrutiny of the above arguments proves that it lacks vitality and needs more information from the author for the reader to make a judicious statement. Without convincing data and questions to the above mentioned questions, this arguments does not seem convincing.
In conclusion, the author's argument could be even correct but stands unpersuasive. To bolster it further, the author must provide a concrete data, perhaps by conducting a reliable survey and sharing it with the readers. To make a better judgement whether to invest money in advertising or not, it is necessary that more information is required.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2215 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.826 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.538 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.434 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.412 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 383, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...d is distorting the view of the readers.To justify his reason the author argues th...
^^
Line 1, column 502, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...s have been good in the last year, they havent been able to get enough viewers due to ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 44, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
...stly, the author claims that the report form the marketing department of the company...
^^^^
Line 7, column 354, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...tions to the above mentioned questions, this arguments does not seem convincing. ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... seem convincing. In conclusion, the authors argument could be even correct but stan...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, so, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2266.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95842450766 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62441781867 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466083150985 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 697.5 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.7243521036 57.8364921388 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.294117647 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8823529412 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.150403777448 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457792316457 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591235959995 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0752950414344 0.128457276422 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.064009045401 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.