"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 advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company has stated in the memorandum that the Super Screen productions should have higher budget for advertisement in order to reach out to the public. The author has made a series of arguments to support the claim he made in the article. Increment in the number of attendee in the movie hall is dependent on a number of reasons, which have not been mentioned or backed by the author. Also, the arguments misses a number of key explanations regarding the arguments made to support the claim, which ultimately renders the claim incomplete as well as invalid.
First of all, the author has to inspect the reasons behind the low attendance at the movies. The movie might have gotten good ratings and reviews by the movie critics, but that has absolutely no correlation with the taste of the normal movie goers. The content of the movies might not be sensational enough to rise the interest of the public or may be the script is superb, but is perinent for a fraction of the people who watches the particular genre of the movie. If the person attending the movies are not getting what they wanted, then the attendance will certainly face drop, irrespective of the reviews they get from the critics.
Furthermore, the director has stated that the public is not aware of the movies they are producing and has to allocate funds to increase advertisement. The argument could have been more trustworthy if it has a backing of a survey from the real life audiences, which could have inspected if the moviegoers will go to watch a movie after seeing their advertisement. Without any real time data, the claim is not enough to increase funds for the advertisement. Otherwise, the company might face a huge loss, if the attendance doesn't increase after spending heavily on the advertisement.
In conclusion, the advertsement director has made a sensational claim to rise the funding allocated for advertisement to get a boost in the number of moviegoers, which is not at all trustworthy with the corresponding arguments he made to support the claim. He assumed that despite getting rave reviews by the movie critics, the general public is remaining unaware of the Super-Screen movies, therefore they need to boost up their advertising endeavours. However, he doesn't taken consideration about the need of the general people in terms of the movie storyline or their is any actual need advertising. If the author has produced any relevant survey data from the public response, the arguments as well as the claim might be strong enough to make a consideration.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. introduction and conclusion are too long.
2. minimum 3 arguments wanted.
---------------------
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: 2128 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.814 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.786 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.705 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 523, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ght face a huge loss, if the attendance doesnt increase after spending heavily on the ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 329, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... rave reviews by the movie critics, the general public is remaining unaware of the Super-Scree...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 467, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...eir advertising endeavours. However, he doesnt taken consideration about the need of t...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 566, Rule ID: THEIR_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'there'?
Suggestion: there
...ople in terms of the movie storyline or their is any actual need advertising. If the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2175.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94318181818 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87302842927 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438636363636 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 678.6 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 47.2105903771 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.9375 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3125 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.204069725762 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0677862934959 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644593275402 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127633215945 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237653859896 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.