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 with you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to dcide whether the recommendation and the argument of which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument presented by the advertising director is appealing. But, for determining the actual credit of his argument, some questions need answering.
The first question that needs to be answered to judge the argument is how many movies have actually gained positive reviews. The advertising director has presented that specific Super Screen movies has gained more positive reviews, not all movies. If that is the case, then although more advertising is done, people will only go to watch those movies. Other movies of Super Screen Production Company will not gain popularity.
Another question is did people stop going to other movies as well? It may be the case that people might prefer not watching movies in cinema halls. The conditions of the cinema halls might be disastrous, the facilities might be dismal. The cinema halls may be located at such places where people doesn't feel comfortable to go. In that case, even if more advertising is done in favor of Super Screen movies, people will prefer to stay at home rather than going to cinema halls.
In his memo, the advertising director only asked for more budget allocation for reaching the public. But he didn't mention how would he use it. Though it is his job as advertising director to spend the budget providently, he may misunderstand the way to reach the audience. It may be one case that he might prefer to reach audience by positive reviews of the movies through newspapers or other written media, but the target audience might be interested in television or other graphic media. In that case, the budget he gets will go in vain without adding much to his case because the reviews will not reach its target audience.
Again the advertising director has stated that the number of people attanding the movies was less only in the past year. The years before that, the number of Super Screen movie goer people was high. The advertising director didn't give a reasonable explanation for that matter. It may only point to his failing to find the actual cause of people not going to Super Screen movies.
The question about the positive reviews about the movies still remains. Who were the positive reviewers? The movie critics? The moviegoer normal public? The positive review from a critic would gain more traction in the publicity of the Super Screen movies. Also, was there a connection between the person who gave positive review with Super Screen Movie Production Company? They could be connected and it may influence their review. The question about the integrity of the reviewers also needs to be answered.
The memo of the advertising director raise questions about the viability of his recommendation. Only after the proper answer of each of the questions, it can be judged if the argument of the advertising director is reasonable.
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: 30 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2282 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.814 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.495 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.129 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.533 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 7 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 21, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'done'.
Suggestion: done
...gain popularity. Another question is did people stop going to other movies as we...
^^^
Line 5, column 297, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... be located at such places where people doesnt feel comfortable to go. In that case, e...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 109, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ocation for reaching the public. But he didnt mention how would he use it. Though it ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 225, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ople was high. The advertising director didnt give a reasonable explanation for that ...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 154, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e critics? The moviegoer normal public? The positive review from a critic would gai...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, so, still, then, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2353.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9957537155 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55817056467 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44161358811 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.6475584228 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.4333333333 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7 23.324526521 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.93333333333 5.70786347227 34% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24422884299 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0766492351237 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0726519218391 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126642757827 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0760071642427 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.