The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from 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 past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument is flawed for several reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on unwarranted assumption that the quality of the movies which are produced by Super Screen Movie Production company are good, rendering its main conclusion that they should allocate a great share of its budget to reach public through advertising invalid
The argument fails to provide any justification that what exactly does good quality of movies mean. This is a subjective question which have many answers. There is a possibility that the maximum population of the country thinks action movies as a good quality movie. If the production company is focused in making a Science fiction movie and think that it would attract more people, then they are wrong. The argument would have been stronger had it provided information regarding the types of movies made by the company and the movies liked my the maximum population of the country. Even then, the argument would have to further prove that the actors hired for the movies or storyline of the movies are liked by the people or not.
The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions. It states that fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies, but then too, the percentage of positive reviews actually increased during the past year. This was bound to happen. The diehard fans of the production company did not stop watching the movies produced by them and always would have given the positive reviews. But since other people stopped watching the movies the overall review would have gone down keeping the positive reviews constant. This will obviously increase the percentage of positive reviews. This argument would have be stronger had it provided the facts and figures of the number of reviews given to them. Even then they cannot prove exactly that the positive reviews will change other people's views of the movies produced by Super Screen.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that allocating a greater share of its budget towards advertising will attract more people. So, even if we assume that advertising will for some time make people to watch the movies produced by Super Screen Production Company, there is a high possibility that those people will not return again to watch the movie as these people may prefer other genre of movies which are not produced by the production company.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that allocating a greater share of it budget to advertising will make more people to like the movies produced by the production company.
Comments
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 424 350
No. of Characters: 2130 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.538 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.024 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.436 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.819 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 605, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...itive reviews. This argument would have be stronger had it provided the facts and ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, if, may, regarding, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2175.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 424.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12971698113 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47238103593 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441037735849 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 683.1 705.55239521 97% => 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: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 91.0526235037 57.8364921388 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.833333333 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5555555556 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05555555556 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245916037815 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.077859897888 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821983660698 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152919388289 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.040488956129 0.0628817314937 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.