The argument quotes the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company saying that the reason for their reduced viewership was the lack of public awareness about movies of good quality. The director concludes that the problem can be solved by spending a larger share on advertising from next year. However, the director's recommendation is questionable given the lack of a diligent analysis of the marketing department's report.
First and foremost, the argument only subjectively mentions that the number of viewers are fewer than in any other year. There is neither information available in terms of the number of viewers compared to the other years, nor any detail of how many previous years did the report consider for coming to this conclusion. Without this information, it becomes difficult to understand the scale of the problem, and also to comprehend what is the expected increase in the budget that the director seeks from next year.
Secondly, in terms of the quality of the reviews, the director is very explicit and specific in stating that the positive reviews are about specific Super Screen movies. However, the director fails to cross-check if these specific movies were related in any manner. It would be incorrect to draw a parallel between the positive reviews of specific movies and derive conclusions for all the other movies, without checking the data for any underlying bias.
For example, they could all be the same genre, in which case it would be faulty of the director to conclude that the there is no problem with the quality of (all) the Super Screen movies. In a case where all the movies with positive reviews that are being considered in the report fall under the same genre, it calls for further investigation to see what was the viewership and the reviews of the movies in the other genres.
On the other hand, these movies with positive reviews could all have been allocated a high portion of the marketing budget share compared to the other Super Screen movies. In such a case, the argument falls weak by not analysing the potential impact of inceasing the marketing budget for the other movies before going ahead with the broader recommendation of increasing the advertising share by Super Screen.
The director could have solidified the recommendation by seeking answers to questions about the credibility of the report and how exactly did the marketing department reach the various conclusions. Without any of these, the recommendation of the advertising director is flimsy and refutable.
To conclude, it can be said that the advertising director's recommendation is too hasty in nature, and lacks evidence and support to back it up.
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2207 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.993 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.207 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.674 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 327, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...dvertising from next year. However, the directors recommendation is questionable given th...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2259.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11085972851 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76179112595 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441176470588 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 702.9 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7422741236 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.1875 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.625 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.216302462593 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0796577559527 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0440113046407 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108950147401 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0640131082008 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.