The following is taken from a memo from 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 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 advertising director of the Super Screen movie company makes three claims. First, that the public’s lack of awareness on the good quality movies that are available. Second, the movies made by the company are well enough in their quality. Third, contents of the reviews are not reaching the prospective viewers. The director supports all of these claims by presenting a fact that despite of fewer people attending the movies produced by the company the percentage of positive reviews increased during the past year. Also, the director makes a recommendation based on the claim that Super Screen should allocate greater share of its budget next year on advertising to the public. However, in my view I find that the claims and recommendations of the advertising director to be unsubstantial and require a thorough analysis.
Firstly, the advertising director makes a claim that the movies made by Super Screen Company are of good quality based on the fact that there is an increase in the percentage of positive reviews by the reviewers. However, just by an increase in percentage of positive reviews cannot justify that the movies are of good quality. We need a close scrutiny to the background of the reviewers and how each of them understands and interprets a movie in order to assign credibility to their reviews. It could be that the positive reviews were given by someone who is not very much fond of watching movies and lacks a sense on how to judge and rate a movie. Or, it could be that the movie company had did not encourage some of the negative reviews and omitted them in order to increase the percentage share of positive reviews of their movies in the past year.
Secondly, the advertising director also claims that the public lack the awareness of the good movies based on the fact that despite of increase in the reviews of its movies in the past year fewer people watched their movies. However, it could be that the subject matter and the genre of the films produced by the company are interesting only to a few people and therefore, people turn out to watch the movies produced by the company. Also, it could be that the movies produced the company have its subject matter which are jargon and could be understood only by a few percentage of its viewers.
Thirdly, the author makes a claim that the content of the reviews are not reaching the prospective viewers based on the fact that fewer people watch their movies despite of the positive reviews of them by the reviewers. However, it may happen that due to jargon type content of the movies, a majority the viewers are not interested to know to reviews of those movies feeling the subject matter to be foreign of their taste of movies. Or, it could happen that the public find the reviewers of those positive reviews as amateur or noob to review such type of movies.
All of the claims rest on certain doubtful assumptions. First, the reviewers who gave positive reviews in the past year are a film critic who have a better understanding and reviewing of a movie based on its content and story. Second, the subject or the genre of the movies produced are interesting to the general viewers.
Therefore, the claims made by the advertising director rest on certain doubtful assumptions. Verification of these assumptions will provide strong hold on the claims made by the director. Also, the recommendation made by the advertising director to increase its share of budget next year will be justifiable if the director verifies the underlying assumptions in the claims made and provide strong hold to the claims.
Comments
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 616 350
No. of Characters: 2920 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.982 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.74 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 214 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.343 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 339, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...e movies are of good quality. We need a close scrutiny to the background of the reviewers and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 694, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'done'.
Suggestion: done
... it could be that the movie company had did not encourage some of the negative revi...
^^^
Line 3, column 712, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...the movie company had did not encourage some of the negative reviews and omitted them in or...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 565, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun percentage seems to be countable; consider using: 'few percentages'.
Suggestion: few percentages
...argon and could be understood only by a few percentage of its viewers. Thirdly, the author ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: All the
... noob to review such type of movies. All of the claims rest on certain doubtful assumpt...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 99.0 55.5748502994 178% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2991.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 616.0 441.139720559 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85551948052 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98190197535 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66500846001 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.313311688312 0.468620217663 67% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 940.5 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.8135381576 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.625 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6666666667 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.203235580945 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0794670454108 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655157716636 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125876436112 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0746514060756 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.98 8.32208582834 84% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.