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's argument that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach more people through advertising is flawed for numerous reasons. The author not only draws conslusion based on vague and ambigious terms but also uses limited data to make sweeping generalization about all movies. Furthermore, the author makes the mistake of focusing solely on advertising without a reason.
First of all, the author readily assumes that percentage of positive reviews are high enough to attract people. This is merely an assumption without much solid ground. For example, if the percentage of positive reviews could be increased from 11 percent to 12 percent during past year. In this case, expecting people to attend movies is an unplausible dream. Hence, the argument would have been a lot more convincing, if it explicitly stated the percentage change in positive reviews.
Secondly, the author claims that the problem lies not with the quality of movies but with the public's lack of awareness, so they should allocate a greater share of budget for advertising next year. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any correlation between advertisement and number of people to be attracted. If the argument provided the evidence that increasing advertisement would significantly boost the movies, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author cites that percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers increased during the past year. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides credible support for author's conclusion in several critical respects and raises several skeptical questions. For example, what are the specific movies or who are the movie reviewers? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of recent movies produced by Super Screen. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information films produced last year.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1890 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.178 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.712 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.83 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.034 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors argument that Super Screen should alloc...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 243, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...positive reviews could be increased from 11 percent to 12 percent during past yea...
^^
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
...tantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1940.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31506849315 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77820377459 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545205479452 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 603.9 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1187328195 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.777777778 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2777777778 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11111111111 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.0 0.218282227539 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0743258471296 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.128457276422 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.