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 advertising director has concluded that additional budget is required for advertising. This conclusion is supported through various evidences such as increase in positive reviews, people unaware about good quality movies. Though the conclusion is based on some evidences provided, the logic behind the conclusion is flawed.
Firstly, it is mentioned that during past years, fewer people attended movies. But nothing have been mentioned about the exact fall in percentage of the number of people. It may be possible that the amount of decrease is not too much. Also, it is just said that the number of people watching the movies has decreases in past year. So, it may be possible that they are are some other reason due to which people could not watch movies, like some natural calamity. So, the advertising director should provide additional evidence about the percentage by which the number of people have fallen, and look at any additional factor which may have caused people to not watch movies in past year.
In addition to this, it is also mentioned that positive reviews have gone up. But, nothing have been specified about the type of positive reviews. The reviews from movie reviewers, who have given positive reviews, may not be well known. Therefore, their reviews might not be as valuable as of other well known reviewers. So, advertising director should look at the type of positive reviews and the reviewers that are giving these reviews. Also, he should look at the reviews of well know reviewers because it is these reviews that the public look at.
Lastly, advertising director has assumed that there is no problem with the quality of movies and just the content of reviews are not reaching enough prospective viewers. But, he/she have not given any evidence that reviews are not reaching the public. It may be possible that the reviews are actually been read by public, but people are still not interested in watching the movies. If that is that case, then even by increased advertisement, the number of people going to movies due to positive reviews will not increase much. So, the director should undertake some survey to analyse whether the reviews are being read by public or not.
Due to the reason stated above, the conclusion that increased share of budget is needed for advertising is flawed. The director need to provide additional evidences mentioned above to reach at a conclusion that is not flawed.
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 1977 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.857 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.451 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.891 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.152 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: are
... year. So, it may be possible that they are are some other reason due to which people c...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 183, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...enough prospective viewers. But, he/she have not given any evidence that reviews are...
^^^^
Line 7, column 576, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...director should undertake some survey to analyse whether the reviews are being re...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, look, may, so, still, then, therefore, well, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2039.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02216748768 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49870868638 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413793103448 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 639.9 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.7983332176 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.6818181818 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4545454545 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.18181818182 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116837394276 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0412229663683 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0493864990267 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0634534258888 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381575062808 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.1 8.32208582834 85% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.