The author avers that the number of people attending the Super Screen-produced movies has plunged lately. Moreover, the author goes on to claim that since, the positive reviews aren't reaching the audience people are not attending the movies proportionately. However, he/she fails to provide any credible hypothesis behind his fallacious conclusion. The argument hastily rushes to an unsound conclusion without paying heed to the underlying vital assumptions. Let us scrutinize the argument.
Firstly, a movie liked by one person does not necessarily be liked by all. The author commits a blunder by equating positive reviews with a good movie. For example, if most people attending the movie shows like action irrespective of and more than the story line or characters or any other factor, then they are less likely to attend a high rated horror or emotional movie. A positive review by a critics has been fallaciously equated to a movie liked by the audience in a particular locality. Thus, more information pertaining to the movie, taste of people and the critics are vital and to be provided with before reaching to any sound conclusion.
Secondly, even if one agrees to authors claims that a good review of a movie by a critic is will be liked by the people proportionately, it is still unwarranted that people will visit the screen-produced movies once the strategy mentioned by the author is implemented. For example, what if there is a hike in the price of the ticket? What if the quality of the screen has plunged during the course of past year? What if the screen has changed it's policy and has made mandatory for the public to purchase their over-priced snacks? The argument fails to provide any information pertaining to the aforementioned factors. Should any one of the above-mentioned be true, the low foot-fall will continue regardless of how good or bad a movie is.
Moving on, even if one ignores all the above-mentioned fallacies, there are certain other factors that can affect the attendance of public. There is no mention about changes in the demography of the region. Moreover, there is no data about any new screen-movie producing firms in the locality. There are other factors such as traffic which can discourage people to travel for more time for a movie. These factors are unaccounted for in the argument leading to a brittle conclusion.
Lastly, the author does not account the changes in the economic conditions as compared to previous year. A change in the pay system can leave people with little or no money to spend on a movie. Likewise, a change in the tax on screen-play movie will again discourage people from paying a hefty sum of money on movies. Thus, the author's claim that foraying more money for marketing the positively reviewed movie will increase the people's attendance seems absurd and fallacious.
To sum up, the author has failed to provide vital information and has not paid heed to the underlying assumptions pertaining to the argument. Due to the dearth of data, one cannot reach any conclusion. To make the argument stronger the author must address the above-mentioned fallacies.
Essay evaluation report
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: 28 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2557 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.88 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.84 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.241 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
... claim that since, the positive reviews arent reaching the audience people are not at...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 396, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a critic' or simply 'critics'?
Suggestion: a critic; critics
...r emotional movie. A positive review by a critics has been fallaciously equated to a movi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 33, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'author'.
Suggestion: author
...ion. Secondly, even if one agrees to authors claims that a good review of a movie by...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: DURING_THE_COURSE_OF[1]
Message: Use simply 'during'.
Suggestion: during
...f the quality of the screen has plunged during the course of past year? What if the screen has chang...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 430, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...tively reviewed movie will increase the peoples attendance seems absurd and fallacious....
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, lastly, likewise, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, for example, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2623.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 522.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02490421456 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91215780562 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463601532567 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 835.2 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.3213493823 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6785714286 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6428571429 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.60714285714 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.19027322951 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0516912774179 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.068278047019 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0991272534272 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557450091784 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.