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 memo, the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company believes that allowing advertising positive reviews for the Super Screen-produced movies to reach the public can facilitate raising the people's awareness of their movies, because the super screen movies encountered decreased attendance rate but increased positive reviews. However, before drawing this conclusion, the director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company needs to examine several pieces of evidence to prove his or her budgeting policy next year.
First, the director of the movie company needs to know if the reviews of the super screen movie can be viewed by the public. If yes, then there is a chance that the public already knew the positive feedback for the specific Super Screen movies but there are some other reasons that prevent them from going to the cinema to watch the super screen movies, for example, the price is higher than regular movies which may be less affordable. In this case, advertising the good reviews more intensively would not help to increase the attendance rate of super screen movies. The budget should be spent on lower down the movie ticket price.
Furthermore, the director of the super screen movie company should investigate if the increased positive reviews only happened to a specific type of super screen movies. If so, it may mean that the public was only interested in that kind of super screen movies instead of all of them. And the drop in attendance might be a result of the cinemas showing the types of super screen movies that the viewers were not in fond of. The director should administer a survey on the movie type that the audience enjoys most and increase the percentage of that specific kind of movies next year. In this case, the director of the movies company can also save their advertising budget.
Finally, the decision maker needs to consider that if the positive reviews on their Super Screen-produced movies can represent the preference of the public. If the Super Screen-produced movies only intrigued a special group of movie fans, their positive reviews on the movies might not be able to arouse the masses to come to the cinemas for Super Screen-produced movies. More demographic information about the viewers' who wrote the positive reviews should be explored to precisely advertise the Super Screen-produced movies to the potential audience in the public that shares similar interests with previous satisfied reviewers.
In conclusion, before allocating budget to advertising, the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company should gather more supporting information on the current accessibility of the positive reviews by the public, the type of movies that received positive reviews, and the reviewers group who provided the satisfying feedback.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 456 350
No. of Characters: 2341 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.621 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.134 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.687 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.328 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.733 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.48 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.643 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.223 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...h the public can facilitate raising the peoples awareness of their movies, because the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, as for, for example, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2391.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 456.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24342105263 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72497903369 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.407894736842 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 88.124760047 57.8364921388 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.4 119.503703932 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4 23.324526521 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390189579888 0.218282227539 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.174734343083 0.0743258471296 235% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0704082544573 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.268171630513 0.128457276422 209% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657018786483 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.