"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 argument purported above states that the marketing department submitted a report in which it is listed that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. In this argument, there are certain loopholes and thus the statement should have been described in more details. As it is not listed that the Super Screen movie that has been released in which month of the year. The movie can be hit sometimes if there are holidays in between the days. The probability of people attending the movie can increase if the movie is released on the days when there is some occasion or festivals.
It has been stated that the positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased, it can be possible that the reviewers who gave the review liked the movie and there can be some people who didn't give the review didn't like the movie. The statistical data is not provided that shows the number of reviews and how they rate the movie. Later it is said that the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. It can be possible that reviews are circulating and instead of this, people are not interested in watching the movie and also it can be possible that previous year they didn't like the movie and that is why they didn't attend this year to see the movie.
Thirdly it is stated that the problem lies not in the quality of movies but the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. This statement is fallacious as it is a duty of the Production company to advertise on such a level that people will acknowledge the movie and they can visit the theater. This doesn't imply that problem lies public awareness. It can be possible that at that time of year other good movies are also released who has advertised on the great level and people are attracted to those movies and thus they didn't attend the Super Screen movies. It can be possible that the movie trailer of the Super Screen movie was not that attractive that could attract more bunch of people.
Lastly, it has been stated that Super Screen should, therefore, allocate a greater share of its budget to reach public through advertising. It can be true as to attract the mass of people advertising is necessary but it is not stated that which medium they will use for advertising and no proper data is provided to prove their point.
In conclusion, the argument purported above requires strong fundamental points to prove this argument. Statistical data should be provided so that proper conclusion can be inferred. Super Screen should advertise on large scale and on different platforms to get intended results.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 470 350
No. of Characters: 2180 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.656 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.638 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.427 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.737 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.53 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 301, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ld have been described in more details. As it is not listed that the Super Screen ...
^^
Line 3, column 227, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... movie and there can be some people who didnt give the review didnt like the movie. T...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 249, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...e some people who didnt give the review didnt like the movie. The statistical data is...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 643, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...can be possible that previous year they didnt like the movie and that is why they did...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 685, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...dnt like the movie and that is why they didnt attend this year to see the movie. ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 326, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ie and they can visit the theater. This doesnt imply that problem lies public awarenes...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...attracted to those movies and thus they didnt attend the Super Screen movies. It can ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, lastly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 30.0 13.6137724551 220% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 54.0 28.8173652695 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2225.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 464.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.79525862069 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46461940338 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413793103448 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 687.6 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.5035927111 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.105263158 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4210526316 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73684210526 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.38894604237 0.218282227539 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130024624622 0.0743258471296 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.120710382783 0.0701772020484 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213547211334 0.128457276422 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.134606192479 0.0628817314937 214% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.