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 writer of the argument concludes that Super Screen should devote a greater share of its budget to advertising in order to reach the public an aware them that the movies of good qualities exist and to encourage them to attend Super Screen-produced movies. However, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that it lays on a number of premises for the support of which some vital questions are to be answered.
The first question is whether the decrease in the Super Screen-produced movies attendance happened because of the lack of awareness that high-quality movies exist in Super Screen. Maybe fewer people attend Super Screen because inventing a new technology attracted people to other types of cinemas and thus, people are less willing to attend Super Screen. Or maybe, people do not attend Super Screen in the past year because they did not like the genre or the plot of the movies broadcasted on Super Screen movies that year.
The other question concerns the number of reviewers who wrote about the movies in Super Screen. The writer does not indicate how many reviews have been written about the specific movies in the past year. Maybe a total of ten reviews has been published, and as a result, the number of reviews is so nominal that attracted few people to these movies. Also, the writer claims that the number of good reviews on specific movies has increased, but does not provide any information about the number of these specific movies. Maybe the proportion of these specific movies to all movies produced during the past year is so negligible that the people actually did not attend these movies because of the number of indifferent and negative reviews given for the rest of the movies.
Finally, the writer claims that the problem is due to the lack of peoples' awareness and not the qualities of the movies. But there is a possibility that people expect movies with a better quality than the current quality and this led to their despondency with the current movies broadcasted Super Screen-produced movies, and they wait for higher quality movies.
In the final analysis, the writer's conclusion cannot be taken to be correct because, as it was shown in the body paragraphs above, there are a number of questions left unanswered. The conclusion can only be accepted if the concerned questions are all addressed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- duplicated to argument 1. need to argue:
Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through
advertising.
--------------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 398 350
No. of Characters: 1914 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.467 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.809 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.534 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.846 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.429 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.683 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 324, Rule ID: LAYS_ATOP[1]
Message: Did you mean 'lies on'?
Suggestion: lies on
... cannot be accepted as it is in that it lays on a number of premises for the support of...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 335, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er Screen-produced movies, and they wait for higher quality movies. In the fin...
^^
Line 9, column 28, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...y movies. In the final analysis, the writers conclusion cannot be taken to be correc...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, thus, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91959798995 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58533312652 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.41959798995 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.7478998166 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.857142857 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4285714286 23.324526521 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42857142857 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.360299836862 0.218282227539 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143862366752 0.0743258471296 194% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106478435313 0.0701772020484 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180671550915 0.128457276422 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.129523325865 0.0628817314937 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.