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.
As an editorial, the author recommended that super screen should allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reach the public through advertising. The author makes the conclusion on the basis of the fact that the problem does not lie with the quality of the movies but with the public's lack of awareness. This argument has several unsupported assumptions, most notably that the content of the movies is very good. This argument has some merits, but it is flawed in two respects.
Most conspicuously, the author argues that the content of the movies is very good. It is entirely possible, however, it is also possible that the content of the movies is B grade i.e. there are more sexual content rather than logical content. Moreover, it is also possible that the content is not related to domestic society. Thus, in order to make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more details about the content which strengthen the argument.
Furthermore, the author argues that the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers is increased. One cannot deny that alternative is possible that such movie reviewers may have a pecuniary relationship with super screen Movie production company. Hence, the author should provide details about the movie reviewers and also provide the name of the channel, if any.
Finally, the author argues that the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness. Howbeit, it is possible that the public is aware of the movies and their content. Moreover, it also possible that Most of the viewers are children and less than 18 years age and the content is 18+ age. So the author should provide the details regarding the targeting audience.
In conclusion, the argument has supported several critical assumptions. Not does the author assumes that the content of the movies is very good, the percentage of positive reviewers by movie reviewers is increased but also presupposes that the pubic has a lack of awareness about the movies. In order to make the argument richer, the author should clear all the assumptions and demonstrate accordingly.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 354 350
No. of Characters: 1739 1500
No. of Different Words: 145 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.338 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.912 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.522 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.219 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.402 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.59 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 20, column 93, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'assume'?
Suggestion: assume
...itical assumptions. Not does the author assumes that the content of the movies is very ...
^^^^^^^
Line 20, column 245, Rule ID: PUBIC_X[1]
Message: Did you mean 'public'?
Suggestion: public
...increased but also presupposes that the pubic has a lack of awareness about the movie...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1812.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 354.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.1186440678 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6371717014 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.426553672316 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.0961145491 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.666666667 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.72222222222 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.126534894756 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.046142225249 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0494545702775 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0837790027095 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0407288370098 0.0628817314937 65% => 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: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.88 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.