The author asked to increase the share of advising budget based on the report from the marketing department. The report indicated the decrease of number of viewer attended the movies produced by the company. However, the movies received more positive reviews than the other year. The author concluded from this contradiction that the reason for fewer viewers is because of the public’s lack awareness of the quality of the movies.
There are several flaws in the authors argument. Firstly, the author cited the report without providing any detailed statistics. When talking about fewer people attending the movies, we need to know the exact number of viewers this year as well as the past years. Furthermore, the author didn’t provide any other information, which may be helpful to make the argument, for example, the number of movies this company released this year. If the company released fewer movies this year compared with any other year, then it is understandable to see a decrease in the number of viewers.
The viewer’s watching habits may also explain the decrease in viewers’ population. Right now, more and more people like watching movies on online streaming service like Netflix. The author didn’t make it clear whether or not statistic in this report includes the viewers from online streaming service. If that is not the case, the result of the report is biased and misleading.
The author also mentioned a higher percentage of positive reviews this year. Again, more details are needed here, an increase from 40% to 41% is completely different from an increase from 40% to 90%. The whole argument will make little sense if the increase was negligible.
In summary, the underlying evidence ,from which the author draw his conclusion, is not robust or comprehensive. The author has not considered other factors which might also affect the number of viewers, for example, the number of movies released. Only by providing more details with specific statistic can the author make a more reasonable argument.