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."Based on a survey conducted by their own marketing department and certain comments by some reviewers, the director made flawed reasoning and drew unconvincing conclusions about the problems responsible for their shrinking market.
This argument is about reviews. However, It seems from the authors statement that The contents of movie's reviews are not reaching enough of them prospective viewers. He has not provide any logics for his reasons. He should have gone in details of report. Hence, The argument can be considered as unsubstantiated.
However, There are many loopholes as the authors talking on basis of his assumptions. First of all, This argument readily assume that the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of their prospective viewers. Second, The author is assuming that the problem lies not with the quality of their movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available.
The author does not considered possibility that why super screen does not given good movies. The author should have also gone in details of why during the year viewers are less then other years. Hence, The arguments clam fails to prove that the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of their prospective viewers.
The author has not even explained that what problem lies not with the quality of our movies. Hence, The argument has holds base only if the author has given a details about the above statement.
Further, The author has talked about super screen should therefor allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the people through advertising. However, he has not given any evidence to support his point of view. Therefore, one can not accept this conclusion without any evidence.
In short, Although , The authors argument is about unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster further, The author should have provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of super screen-produced movies. The author should also have emphasized on a detailed explanations of super screen's budget.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 302 350
No. of Characters: 1500 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.169 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.967 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.499 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 47 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 22 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.895 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.365 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 60, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...out reviews. However, It seems from the authors statement that The contents of movies r...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...of them prospective viewers. He has not provide any logics for his reasons. He should h...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 21, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'consider'
Suggestion: consider
...y are available. The author does not considered possibility that why super screen does ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 178, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[2]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...of why during the year viewers are less then other years. Hence, The arguments clam ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 158, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a detail' or simply 'details'?
Suggestion: a detail; details
...holds base only if the author has given a details about the above statement. Further, ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 19, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...hout any evidence. In short, Although , The authors argument is about unpersuas...
^^
Line 11, column 26, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y evidence. In short, Although , The authors argument is about unpersuasive as it st...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 122, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...bolster further, The author should have provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way ...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 278, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'explanation'?
Suggestion: explanation
...ould also have emphasized on a detailed explanations of super screens budget.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, in short, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1550.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 302.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13245033113 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59998567256 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.470198675497 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0914830151 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.5789473684 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8947368421 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68421052632 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.125925874161 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376586844728 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0466408002283 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0680937739741 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029599318298 0.0628817314937 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.57 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 12.3882235529 44% => 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?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.