"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."
The director's memo claims that the Super Screen Movie production company should allocate a greater share of its budget for advertising of its movies. To support his claims, he says that a recent report from marketing department stated that fewer people attened super screen movie last year. Percent of positive reviews about specific screen movie increased hence he claims that there is no issue with the quality, the problem lie in the advertising. However, director's line of reasoning is fraught with erroneous logic and conclusion.
Firstly, for strengthening his claims, director has given evidence of recent report from marketing departement which has shown, a fewer people attended the Super screen movie. It is not convincing reasoning, it has several loop holes. First, what is the authencity of the report, it could be actual or could not be. Secondly, the report only talked about the past year, one year data is not a representative for director claims. It might be possible that, in the past year, there was an election hence people are more focused on the election or there was an tragedy or a natural accident like eathquake, hence they did not watch movies.
Secondly, director has said that the precentage of positive reviews by reviewers about specific movie increased in the past year. In this reasoning, the doubt comes with the percentage, what percentage of what number of people, 10 percentage of 100 people or 10 percentage of 10000 people. Both have different interpretation and result. Here also, the positive reviews are about only specific movie. One specific movie's reviews do not represent that viewers thinking in all super screen movie. People might have given positive reviews about a social movie screened in the last year and super screen generally make science movie, then director claims of lack advertising is erroneous.
In summary, the argument of the director falls short in many aspect. The director did start with a sound premise, but it lacked the necessary data to support and strengthen it. If he has included more years reports in his reasoning, more number of movies for reference then director's thought process in progressing from premise to the stated conclusion would not have been so abrupt and jarring. Further the inclusion of, what number and what percentage of what number of positive reviews have been give for its movies, the type of movies, the past year country situation where his movie released would have helped director to drive his point in a far more convincing manner and would have established his position. But, in the absence of these, the argument is flawed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- ???
----------------
minimum 3 arguments wanted.
-----------------=
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 433 350
No. of Characters: 2149 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.562 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.963 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.518 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.39 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.492 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
The directors memo claims that the Super Screen Movie...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...re focused on the election or there was an tragedy or a natural accident like eath...
^^
Line 7, column 57, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun aspect seems to be countable; consider using: 'many aspects'.
Suggestion: many aspects
...argument of the director falls short in many aspect. The director did start with a sound pr...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2205.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 433.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09237875289 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57371209365 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473441108545 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 675.9 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.2533270552 57.8364921388 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.25 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.65 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.25 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.292009263642 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0907705836103 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100555593482 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197353604331 0.128457276422 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.081339897718 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.