At the same time while it may be true, it would be beneficial to ameliorate the budget of advertising. However, the author's conclusion to allocate more budget next year is a petitio principii that rests weakly on three primary assumptions that make the argument not strong enough to validate the sequel.
First, ratiocinating a conclusion has appealed reinforced justifications which had been acceded logistically. Citing that fewer people attended produced movies is displaying a marked contrast with positive reviews about company's products. For instance, might the deterioration of audiences was because of economic issues that illustrates that people could not afford it like last year to attend cinemas, therefore we need more evidence on it. All in all, it cannot be used to advocate the author's argument.
Second, the other assumption made by the author to arrive at the conclusion is the wrong perception that increased positive reviews without any statistics to illustrate that it is negligible or significant. For example, if the ameliorated rate was only one or two percent which is not a radical line of reason to support the quality of movies. To strengthen the argument, the author would benefit from promulgating the exact rate of enhanced positive reviews.
Finally, argument relies on this assumption that the problem lies not with the quality of the movies, nonetheless, the lack of awareness of public's point of view about a good movie. The views about movies in a society is not a thing that would change during a year, it is an abyss abstract that was implemented in many years. As an exemplification, it is absolutely impossible that during past years, a society prefer drama movies generally, nevertheless, comprehensively deflect to comedy movies abruptly. Consequently, the author does not effectively depict the hyphen between people's taste and quality of movies.
Succinctly, the author's conclusion relies heavily on its assumptions, perhaps too heavily, which has made us to question soundness of the conclusion. The implementation of recommendation may or may not be true. The originator of the argument should have involved extra numerous testimonies and more compelling warrants and surveys that has made him to accomplish the conclusion. with eliminating premises like people's prospect that was mentioned earlier.
Essay evaluation report
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1943 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.28 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.009 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.992 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 117, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the budget of advertising. However, the authors conclusion to allocate more budget next...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 490, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... all, it cannot be used to advocate the authors argument. Second, the other assumpti...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...d quality of movies. Succinctly, the authors conclusion relies heavily on its assump...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 380, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: With
... made him to accomplish the conclusion. with eliminating premises like peoples prosp...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, so, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1992.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.41304347826 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08978265458 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58152173913 0.468620217663 124% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.4093416202 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.176470588 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6470588235 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171612574565 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502224362871 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740955442146 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0856209158852 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0665160418766 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.