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.
According to the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, the company should have to increasse its next year bugdet primarily on the advertising. To make this argument, the director assumes that the lower number of viewers for the film is due to insufficient publicity despite of increament on the positvie review. I found this argument irrational because it rests upon several undounded assumption.
In the first analysis, the director assumes that despite his movies have quality, the fewer attenment on his movies is due to lack of advertisemt. He seeks no improvement on quality but in advertisement. However, since no any independent report had not mentioned the same, it is implausible to conend so. Moreover, people appriciate the quality nomatter who makes it. So, to make his movies more famous, he might have to focus on the quality. Additionally, since, positive reviews are also increasing despite the number of viewrs of the movies, the director might have to think about other ways to increse his market.;
Secondly, the director assumes the annonimous report to make such deciosn which seems to be audacious itself. If he director is inclined to make more resolute decision, he might have to check the credibilty of the research report. Again, it can be possible that the report might not contain the other potential reason of the lower attainmnet of viewrs like, condition of movie theatre, beheavior of the theatre official etc. thus, the director might have to question on the credibilty of the report before making decision based opon this.
Thirdly, the director also seems to be very confident about increase in publicity can really bolster its market. It is irony to assumes so in the case where viewers are decresing actually when positive review is increasing. Moreover the director might be wasteffully spendinmg its budget if he is willing to spend on the same job which is not prodcuing any benifit.
In concluison, the assumption it takes to makes the decision renders the argument flawed. Thus to make more pragmatic decision, the director would have took the credible report and to find other solutions like to enhance the quality, improve the comfort of the theatre etc to increase its revenue.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1828 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.967 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.607 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.099 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 220, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ty but in advertisement. However, since no any independent report had not mentione...
^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...lly when positive review is increasing. Moreover the director might be wasteffully spend...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 43, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'make'.
Suggestion: make
... concluison, the assumption it takes to makes the decision renders the argument flawe...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 91, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e decision renders the argument flawed. Thus to make more pragmatic decision, the di...
^^^^
Line 9, column 153, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'taken'.
Suggestion: taken
...matic decision, the director would have took the credible report and to find other s...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1884.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11956521739 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70359541469 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51902173913 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 605.7 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.681442327 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.823529412 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6470588235 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94117647059 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135622784829 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0461818999275 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0607576677328 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0776373628905 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462170965084 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => 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.