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 of the Super Screen Movie Production Company suggests that the company should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising. To support this suggestion, he cites a report from the company's marketing department which said the number of people attending Super Screen-produced movies was fewer in last year than in any other year. He also mention that the percentage of positive movie reviews actually increased during the past year. And he concludes that the main problem lies in the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. However, even though the reasoning seems reasonable, more evidence is needed to evaluate the argument.
To begin with, the director cited a recent report from their marketing department about a anomaly in the amount of viewers they received last year. The question we need to ask is the accuracy of their report. Generally, after a movie comes out, it is firstly showed in the movie theater and then on personal device such as phone or TV. If their marketing department only counts those viewers who went to movie theater, then obviously their report's accuracy is not guaranteed. And the director's argument will be weakened. On the contrary, if it turns out that the report is of high accuracy, then the director's argument will be fortified.
Granted that the report from marketing department is accurate, we still need more information about the movie reviews. Movie reviewers might write some fake reviews sometimes. And if the movie only attract some specific kind of people, then movie reviewers who are fond of this movie will remain and give positive comment while others may just write some perfunctory review or even refuse to watch this movie. In this situation, the company will receive more positive review, but it is only because of its movie has a specific target. Thus we ask whether the movie reviewers are unchanged and whether they treat their comment seriously. If the answer for these questions are positive, then the director's suggestion should be taken. If we received a negative answer, then the director's argument is undermined.
Last, the director combines the two aforementioned arguments and concludes that the problem lies in the public's lack of awareness of good movies. However, this could be wrong if the quality of movie is in fact declining. We need more evidence to evaluate the quality of movie. For example, the company can randomly choose some audience and interview them about how they think about the movie's quality. If the result turns out that the quality of movie actually remains approximately the same, the director's argument will be strengthened.
To summarize, we can not evaluate the director's argument unless the aforementioned questions are answered.
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2324 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.052 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.611 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.744 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.509 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.204 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 408, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'He' must be used with a third-person verb: 'mentions'.
Suggestion: mentions
...st year than in any other year. He also mention that the percentage of positive movie r...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 89, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...t from their marketing department about a anomaly in the amount of viewers they r...
^
Line 3, column 485, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...rts accuracy is not guaranteed. And the directors argument will be weakened. On the contr...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 601, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...he report is of high accuracy, then the directors argument will be fortified. Granted ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 536, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...use of its movie has a specific target. Thus we ask whether the movie reviewers are ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 695, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... these questions are positive, then the directors suggestion should be taken. If we recei...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 776, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...we received a negative answer, then the directors argument is undermined. Last, the di...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 498, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
...lly remains approximately the same, the directors argument will be strengthened. To su...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 39, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'directors'' or 'director's'?
Suggestion: directors'; director's
... To summarize, we can not evaluate the directors argument unless the aforementioned ques...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, still, then, thus, while, for example, in fact, kind of, such as, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2375.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16304347826 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67107573042 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471739130435 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 746.1 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.8537643856 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.9583333333 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45833333333 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.281619553051 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0767800593668 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0789767713577 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149380569769 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110428233902 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.