The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company concludes that company should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. The author in this argument assumes that according to recent report from marketing department, fewer people attended Super Screen movies last year than any other year. Also, positive views by reviewers increased during the past year. Hence, the author concludes that there is lack of advertising, but there is not nay flaw in the quality of the movie. This argument has many unanswered questions, hence, it lead to dubiousness. Moreover, this argument has several flaws in it.
Firstly, the author in this argument assumes that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviwers about specific super movies actually increased during the past year. By how much percentage does this increased ? The author fails to depict change in percentage. It may be a case that the increase in percentage is very low such as by one percent or two percent, and hence we cannot conclude that the only reason for lack of movie demand is lack of advertising.
Secondly, this argument is utterly based on a recent report proposed by marketing department. The author ignores a possibility that a report which may based on the study had several flaws and more probability of error. The author in this argument fails to show conditions, validity, number of people included in study, characteristics of a report, etc. Hence, it has lack of evidences.
Moreover, the author's conclusion is utterly based on review submitted by positive reviews cast by reviewers. The author in this argument assumes that fails to depict number of reviewers watched movies, and number of people submitted their review.
Furthermore, there is no any evidence in this argument that lack of advertising is an only cause for lack of support for the movie. Also, the author assumes that conditions will be similar in future as that of today or the past. It may be as a case that condition will totally dissimilar in future, and instead of allocating budget , there will no improvement in demand for Super Screen movies.
In conclusion, this argument has many unanswered question and lack of support evidences, hence this argument lead to dubiousness. Moreover, the author fails to depict number of reviewers reviewed movie, statistical data, etc. Also, the author fails to consider a possibility that condition may change from that of today or the past and details to provide number of percentage increased in positive view. To strengthen this argument, the author should consider all such detail to sound this argument compelling and cogent
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 438 350
No. of Characters: 2197 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.575 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.016 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.63 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.548 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 601, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'leads'?
Suggestion: leads
...as many unanswered questions, hence, it lead to dubiousness. Moreover, this argument...
^^^^
Line 7, column 15, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...has lack of evidences. Moreover, the authors conclusion is utterly based on review s...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 23, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... their review. Furthermore, there is no any evidence in this argument that lack...
^^
Line 9, column 290, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e that condition will totally dissimilar in future, and instead of allocating bud...
^^
Line 9, column 292, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...that condition will totally dissimilar in future, and instead of allocating budget , the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 335, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...future, and instead of allocating budget , there will no improvement in demand for...
^^
Line 11, column 261, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... etc. Also, the author fails to consider a possibility that condition may change ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2264.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 438.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16894977169 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57476223824 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73096719464 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.422374429224 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 707.4 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.941047604 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4347826087 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0434782609 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47826086957 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less 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: 0.277555070081 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890520259538 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130014105982 0.0701772020484 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155930193254 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11608697153 0.0628817314937 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.