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 argument must answer a number of questions for it to be reasonable. The increase in the percentage of positive reviews about Super Screen movies might have been due to the fact that the total number of reviews is lesser compared to the previous year since the number of people attending the Super Screen-produced movies decreased in the past year. The movies might have received postive reviews by the critics, but audience might have given it negative reviews, and so this might have resulted in the decrease in the number of viewers. The company might have faced some criticism in the past year which might have led the people to boycott the movies produced by it; hence, the number of viewers might have dropped as a result.
First, the number of people who watched the movies produced by Super Screen has decreased in the past year. So, the total number of reviews received by the movie is lesser. This might explain the higher percentage of positive reviews. For example, if 5000 people viewed the Super Screen-produced movies in the past year, and 10,000 people the year before that, and the movies received 1000 positive reviews in both the cases, then the percentage of positive reviews in higher for the past year (1000/5000*100% = 20%) than the year before that (1000/10,000*100% = 10%) even though the number of positive reviews is the same. So, the argument must include the number of positive reviews received.
Second, the movies might have been enjoyed by the critics, but not by the audience. The movies which are nominated for the Oscars usually fall into this category. This might have resulted in the decrease in the number of viewers of Super Screen-produced movies in the past year. So, the argument must specify the average ratings given by the critics and the audience, as well as the total number of ratings (since higher average ratings might also be due to the decrease in the number of viewers; this is explained in the second paragraph).
Finally, Super Screen Production Company might have faced some criticism in the past year. It might have been involved in a scandal. This might have led to decrease in the number of viewers of the movies produced by Super Screen Production Company. For instance, the production company led by Harvey Weinstein, the infamous producer who was recently exposed for multiple sexual assault allegations, had known about his activities, but did nothing to stop it. So, in a way it harboured him. In the future, if the company produces a film, people might not be willing to watch the film, even though the film might not be associated with Weinstein. This might lead to empty theaters.
In conclusion, increased advertising does not help in any of the previous scenarios.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The movies might have received postive reviews by the critics, but audience might have given it negative reviews, and so this might have resulted in the decrease in the number of viewers.
Error: postive Suggestion: positive
-------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
It is on the wrong track for GRE argument essays.
-------------------
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 467 350
No. of Characters: 2205 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.649 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.722 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.398 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.238 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.538 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.399 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 353, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...uced movies decreased in the past year. The movies might have received postive revi...
^^^
Line 1, column 449, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'negatives'?
Suggestion: negatives
...itics, but audience might have given it negative reviews, and so this might have resulte...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 541, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the decrease in the number of viewers. The company might have faced some criticism...
^^^
Line 1, column 733, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...viewers might have dropped as a result. First, the number of people who watched ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, if, second, so, then, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2278.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 463.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92008639309 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5704961724 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.371490280778 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.9895685565 57.8364921388 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.476190476 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0476190476 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04761904762 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221343029862 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0872022220666 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0983873593219 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134122362206 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586282883502 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.