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.
The topic was about allocated a greater budget next year for advertisement and increasing awareness of the good quality of super screen movies. The argument is based on unwarranted reasons and flawed for the following reasons.
First of all, the author claimed that fewer people attended the super-screen produced movie, but the percentage of positive reviews increases comparing to last year. The author does not provide the actual number of people who gave a positive review. It might be possible that the fewer people who attended still like super screen movies, but the majority do not consider them as a good movie anymore. The author also does not provide to what extent the percentages of positive review increased. Without proper survey data, it is impossible to predict the conclusion.
The author also claimed that the movies do not reach the prospective viewers as the positive review increased and the author claimed the public lack awareness towards good movies. The author does not provide any critics blog that claimed that the super screen produced movies created a positive impact. It might be possible that people are well aware of movies quality. Even without traditional advertisement, there are plethora platforms like radio, internet and other public, who reviewed movies and the public decide what to watch after listening to them. So, people lack awareness claim is unwarranted.
Thus the following argument is flawed and based on unwarranted reasons. The argument is failed to provide any convincing data the proves the super screen produced movies are quality movies and not properly reaching to the viewers due to the lack of awareness.
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 268 350
No. of Characters: 1371 1500
No. of Different Words: 119 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.046 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.116 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.508 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 74 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.818 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.381 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.567 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 213, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'critics'' or 'critic's'?
Suggestion: critics'; critic's
...movies. The author does not provide any critics blog that claimed that the super screen...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...lack awareness claim is unwarranted. Thus the following argument is flawed and ba...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, so, still, thus, well, first of all
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: 2.0 12.9520958084 15% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 55.5748502994 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1407.0 2260.96107784 62% => OK
No of words: 268.0 441.139720559 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.567389243 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 204.123752495 64% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485074626866 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 441.9 705.55239521 63% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.2280403661 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.5 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78571428571 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.21500246959 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0812744076166 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0725698553579 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144108534913 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0247482831051 0.0628817314937 39% => 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: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
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.