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
In the memo, the writer suggests Super Screen allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. To support the claim, the writer provides that though fewer people attended Super Screen-produced moives than in any other year, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about Super Screen movies increased during the past year. And then writer concludes that the main reason in a reduction of viewers is not the quality of a movie rather lack of public's awarness about the movie. At first glance, the author's argument seems convincing, but there are several questions that need to be answered before reaching to the conclusion.
Firstly, the writer states that the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And concludes that the decline in movie viewers is due the public's lack of awareness that a Super-Screen produced movies are actually good. The writer should provide that is there a decline in movies of other production or not. If there is a decline in movies of all the movie production then it may be possible that purchase capacity of people might be reduced, thus they decided to cut the expense of entertainment.
Secondly, the writer enthusiastically provides that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. To take this in an account, the author should povide that by how many percentage the positive reviews of specific Super Screen produced movies increased. Furthermore, the writer states that only specifit movies produced by Super Screen got high positive reviews that previous year. However, we do not know how many Super Screen-produced movies are high rated by movie reviewers. There is a possibility that one or two movies got high percentage of movies.
Finally, the author has not provided any statistical data about the reviews of by critics in previous years. In past years, the movies produced by Super Screen got very less percentage of positive reviews. And in past years there was very small percentage increase in the positive reviews. Thus, we cannot conclude that the movies' quality actually improved. Thus, it would be the wrong ot say the problem lies not with the quality of the movies but with the public' lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.
. Moreover, the author has not provided about the statistical data about the budget allocated for advertisement of movies in previous year. It might be possible that the actual budget is already high, but the quality of movie restrain viewers to watch movies produced by Super Screen. In conclusion, the author has made overly optimistic conclusion that bu increasing the budget next year for advertisement will increase the movie viewers of Super Screen produced movies
Comments
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: 466 350
No. of Characters: 2351 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.646 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.045 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.627 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.85 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.163 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 554, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s about the movie. At first glance, the authors argument seems convincing, but there ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 248, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun percentage seems to be countable; consider using: 'many percentages'.
Suggestion: many percentages
...t, the author should povide that by how many percentage the positive reviews of specific Super ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ovies of good quality are available. . Moreover, the author has not provided a...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2406.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 466.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16309012876 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68590779166 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.392703862661 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 745.2 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2907011216 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.571428571 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1904761905 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.09523809524 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.591692708665 0.218282227539 271% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.230541185354 0.0743258471296 310% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.167960097901 0.0701772020484 239% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.401244959122 0.128457276422 312% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0859045910742 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.