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 claims that Super Screen should allocate a greater share of it budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. To justify this claim, it cites a recent report from the marketing department which states that even though fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies last year, the percentage of positive reviews have increased over the past year. This claim is based on assumptions and fails to mention several key factors. The scope and validity of the report is also not clear. For these reasons, the argument is unconvincing.
First, the argument mentions a recent report from their marketing department. There are no details provided on the report, the factors that were considered while making the report or whether any stats were considered or not. There is also no mention of the number of people who attended Super Screen produced movies prior to the previous year. Without considering these points and providing elaborate details on them, the argument is unsubstantiated by evidence.
Secondly, the argument based on the report claims that despite few people watching the movies, the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies increased during the past year. This claim is not backed by any data. There could be a possibility prior to this year many people watched such movies but abstained from providing any reviews. Even if the director's claim is considered to be true, it could be possible that some people exaggerated their reviews and gave a positive feedback. Had these factors been ruled out, the argument would have been considerably strengthened.
Finally, the argument unfairly infers that the problem lies not with the quality of the movies but with the fact that the public is not aware that movies of good quality are available. In fact many people would be aware of these good movies but just did not want to watch them as they were interested in watching some other movie. The director also assumes that allocating a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising will help improve the awareness of the movies to the general public. Doing so does not guarantee this and if it does not help then a large portion of the budget would have been lost even despite knowing that it could been used somewhere worthwhile. Without providing any case or example from the past that his has proved to be advantageous, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
The conclusion of the assumption is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. Had proper details and evidence been provided, the argument would have been better reasoned.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2257 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.982 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.538 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.444 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.503 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 514, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...erated their reviews and gave a positive feedback. Had these factors been ruled o...
^^
Line 7, column 510, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...rove the awareness of the movies to the general public. Doing so does not guarantee this and i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 674, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...lost even despite knowing that it could been used somewhere worthwhile. Without prov...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2308.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 453.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09492273731 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60480974254 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465783664459 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 709.2 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7445989981 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.904761905 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.298844064119 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0855556535674 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104739962362 0.0701772020484 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169390325096 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102050974333 0.0628817314937 162% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => 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: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.