The advertising director's argument that they should allocate greater budget for advertising the movies next year so that they can reach the public is spurious on various grounds as it lacks certain crucial information that could justify the claims.
Initially, it is proffered that according to the report from the marketing department, fewer people have attended Super Screen produced movies last year than in any other year. However, the fact that most the movies produced this year may not be of the same genres as of last year and people that usually went to watch Super-Screen produced movies did not prefer these classes of movies has not been taken into account. More so, even if the genre was the same, people may not have time to attend the movies at the time of their release because of their prior commitments or busy schedules. The unavailability of information regarding these scenarios questions the veracity of this claim.
Secondly, it is posited that the reviews for specific Super-Screen produced movies haven been positive and increased over the last year. Here, the director fails to acknowledge that some specific movies, not all, have been reviewed positively and that people may have been to watch those movies, whose reviews were good but not the other ones, which may have let the numbers of people attending movies dwindle.
Lastly, the director claims that the problem is not with the quality of the movies but the public's lack of awareness of that the movies of good quality are available. The failure of writer to realize that again, specific movies, not all were reviewed positively and that there is no information of the contents of the review. Were they about the story, direction, acting or cinematography? Was there any review that highlighted the quality of the movie in particular? The insufficiency of data that could answer these questions renders this claim unsound.
Therefore, the argument that greater share of the movie budget should be allocated to the advertising so that it reaches the public fails to make a cogent case and is rendered fallacious.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 347 350
No. of Characters: 1717 1500
No. of Different Words: 168 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.316 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.948 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.528 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.692 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.769 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.617 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1763.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 347.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08069164265 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59444752692 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.49855907781 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7568963223 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.615384615 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6923076923 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 5.70786347227 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239855667345 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837030956196 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111377464569 0.0701772020484 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116749651679 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0913960920589 0.0628817314937 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.