The preceeding memo raises issue to the drop in attendance of the Super Screen-produced movies in the past year, citing a recent report from the marketing department to be the valid indicator for this evidence. The author further predicts that this effect is not due to the poor quality of movie they are producing but because of the lack of awareness of the people. Thus, he appeals for a raise in the annual budget allocated for advertisement. Though the claim may have merit, it suffers heavily from unreasonable premises and assumptions, lack of sufficient substantitation and unasnwered questions that make the case ambiguous. Hence, the argument presented in the memo cannot be taken as valid.
The primary issue with the claim is the lack of evidentiary support. Firstly, there is no gurantee of the report cited to be statistically signifcant or conclusive. What if the report included data from only three months for the past year and extrapolated the same to reach conclusion? Furthermore, there feedback for the movies by the customers is probably not worthy enough to be considered representative of the population. What if less than one percent of the crowd actually saw the movie? In that case, it is hardly relevant whether the percentage of positive reviews increased or not. Perhaps, it is the poor movie production which is reponsible for low turnout of audience and allocating more budget to advertising is immaterial.
In addition, the author's untenable assumptions further dampen the cogency of the argument. Is the budget for the advertising already high? In that case, a further raise might hamper with the overall production and make the work infeasible in other departments. The worst case scenario might provide no flexibility to play around with the budget, if the Super Screen Movie is already in a money crunch situation; which could be plausible given the low interest shown by people in recent times. Also, the overall market scenario has not been considered by the writer. What if other rival companies are faring better by producing movies more suited to their taste? Thus, it might be wise for the managing directors to review the movie content and make it more alligned with the genres in public demand.
Although the memo presented previously is flawed, it not to say that it is entirely without merit. If the marketing department has produced a valid report about the dropping number of Super Screen movie goers, then does raise some concerns. And perhaps as the reponse to movie has been positive despite low interest in the overall crowd, it might be that only the ardent fans of this production company are aware of their new projects. Thus, focussing more on advertising and awareness issues is well judged.
In sum, the argument provided by the author is illogical. In order to set the claim on sound footing, he must largely rephrase his thesis, provided adequate evidentiary information, explicate assumptions about the overall observation of Super Screen movie goers, and answer the pertinent questions. Without a proper overhaul to his lukewarm argument, he is likely to persuade a few people at best.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The author further predicts that this effect is not
Sentence: The preceeding memo raises issue to the drop in attendance of the Super Screen-produced movies in the past year, citing a recent report from the marketing department to be the valid indicator for this evidence.
Error: preceeding Suggestion: proceeding
Sentence: Though the claim may have merit, it suffers heavily from unreasonable premises and assumptions, lack of sufficient substantitation and unasnwered questions that make the case ambiguous.
Error: may Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: substantitation Suggestion: substantiation
Error: unasnwered Suggestion: unanswered
Sentence: The primary issue with the claim is the lack of evidentiary support.
Error: evidentiary Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Firstly, there is no gurantee of the report cited to be statistically signifcant or conclusive.
Error: gurantee Suggestion: guarantee
Error: signifcant Suggestion: significant
Sentence: Perhaps, it is the poor movie production which is reponsible for low turnout of audience and allocating more budget to advertising is immaterial.
Error: turnout Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: reponsible Suggestion: responsible
Sentence: In addition, the author's untenable assumptions further dampen the cogency of the argument.
Error: cogency Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Thus, it might be wise for the managing directors to review the movie content and make it more alligned with the genres in public demand.
Error: alligned Suggestion: aligned
Sentence: And perhaps as the reponse to movie has been positive despite low interest in the overall crowd, it might be that only the ardent fans of this production company are aware of their new projects.
Error: reponse Suggestion: repose
Sentence: Thus, focussing more on advertising and awareness issues is well judged.
Error: focussing Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: In order to set the claim on sound footing, he must largely rephrase his thesis, provided adequate evidentiary information, explicate assumptions about the overall observation of Super Screen movie goers, and answer the pertinent questions.
Error: explicate Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: evidentiary Suggestion: No alternate word
---------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. It is like a conclusion paragraph.
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 519 350
No. of Characters: 2575 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.773 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.961 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.962 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.707 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.577 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.256 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.451 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, so, then, thus, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2641.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 519.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08863198459 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7730044521 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80388730157 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49710982659 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.8144412109 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.576923077 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9615384615 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.80769230769 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.282414900417 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0653774797499 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773463913791 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155162274401 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0550493991445 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.