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."Based on a survey conducted by their own marketing department and certain comments by some reviewers, the director made flawed reasoning and drew unconvincing conclusions about the problems responsible for their shrinking market.
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company asserts that even though they receive more positive reviews on their new movies, the number of people who attends these movies decreased during the last year. The director presumes that since they receive better reviews, the reason why they sell the less number of tickets cannot be related to the quality of these movies. Furthermore, he clearly states that the reason should be the lack of awareness in public, that people do not hear about how good the movie is, thus, they should be spending more money on advertising next year. The assertion made by the director seems valid on the surface, however, when you scratch its surface even a bit, you see that there are a number of flaws in the chain of assumptions.
To begin with, I believe that the reason why the number of appreciative comments raised while the number of attendants decreased might be because the audience of the movie has undergone a drastic change. Maybe during the last year, their movies only attracted the people who were already fans, not the prospective viewers with no opinion beforehand? For example, most of the fans of Spiderman would appreciate the new movie of the hero no matter what and they would not adulterate the name of him. However, it is easier for an impartial viewer to make harsh criticisms towards any movie. Thus, I believe that the reason why they receive less critiques while the number of viewers lessen might be this. Another factor to consider might be the economic situation of the country. In case of a rise in the inflation rates or an economic crisis, people cut on their spending on movies or shopping. The reason why the impartial viewers do not choose their movies might be that, they can only go to the movies they are really curious about and cannot afford others. They only go to the Spiderman movie that they love and not romantic comedies just to have fun and critique freely.
Furthermore, the director also claims that the positive comments are not reaching out, the prospective viewers cannot hear about how good the movie is. However, the director does not state where these recommendations are and the reason why the other people stay unaware of them. Are they online reviews sent to movie review websites? Are they valuable film critiques published in a local newspaper? Who are the people writing about the movies? Since most people do not choose which film to go out of a whim, in order for comments to be beneficial, they should belong to a person who is known and respected. Are they people who are respected in a society? If not, people might be reading these reviews but ignoring due to the fact that they just belong to teenagers or John Doe's.
Moreover, the director implies that the solution to the problem is increasing the proportion of advertisements in the budget next year. Nevertheless, he does not clearly state what kind of advertisement is going to alleviate the problem. Is he going to target local newspapers or rather be more aggressive in online marketing? Since the way to go is not crystal clear, one cannot settle for his assumptions and support the director's decisions.
One more thing to pay attention to is, in my opinion, the fact that he is the "advertising director" of the company. Maybe the reason why he thinks that the reason is lack of advertising because he wants his budget in the company to be increased. Since the other claims turned out to be invalid, I believe that this is another matter to pinpoint.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 612 350
No. of Characters: 2861 1500
No. of Different Words: 257 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.974 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.675 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.442 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.223 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.464 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.276 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.465 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 638, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun critiques is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...elieve that the reason why they receive less critiques while the number of viewers l...
^^^^
Line 7, column 445, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ns and support the directors decisions. One more thing to pay attention to is, i...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, really, so, thus, while, for example, kind of, in my opinion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 58.0 28.8173652695 201% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2944.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81045751634 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57359943882 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43137254902 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 915.3 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8503914997 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.142857143 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8571428571 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.03571428571 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157963616646 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0485136600013 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0524389284734 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0935166416157 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359115764095 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.57 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.