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 memo claims that fewer people attended Super Screen movies, in the previous year, because they are not aware of the increase in positive reviews Super Screen movies are facing. The arguments provided to accomplish that conclusion, however, are flimsy as they are susceptible to plausible alternative explanations.
First the letter mention that the percentage of positive reviews about some Super Screen movies increased in the year before, but fewer spectators are attending Super Screen-produced movies; thus, those reviews are not reaching the audience as it should be. On the other hand, the letter does not provide details on how those movies are being broadcasted in the theaters. Maybe people are not watching them because of the time they are being broadcasted, if it is passing only in the morning, for example, great part of the expected public may be at work.
Moreover, the percentage by itself may not be representative enough to indicate that this kind of movie is satisfying people. For instance, if the number of positive reviews went from 10 to 20 it represents an increase of 100%, however, 20 is not a substantial number compared to the total number of movie spectators. The author did not mention neither the percentage nor the amount of reviews, so his argument is strongly questionable.
The text also states that since the number of positive reviews increased, the quality of the movies are good. Just people are not being well informed of this. This argument is also feeble as great part of that review may have come from a small number of movies and may not represent the genre as a whole. For example, if one Super Screen movie was sucessful as to people start to make superb reviews about them, this could have lead the reported percentage increase in the positive reviews. This, conversely, does not represent the general opnion of the genre as a whole.
In conclusion, the final author`s allegation to strengthen advertising in order to increase people`s awareness of positive reviews Super Screen movies had last year may not accomplish the goal expected: to make people attend more this genre of movies. The arguments provided are weak. They could, otherwise, be strengthen if the memo had provided more details about the Super Screen movies` schedules, the percentage increase and the amount of reviewers and the distribution of reviews by movie.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: For example, if one Super Screen movie was sucessful as to people start to make superb reviews about them, this could have lead the reported percentage increase in the positive reviews.
Error: sucessful Suggestion: successful
Sentence: This, conversely, does not represent the general opnion of the genre as a whole.
Error: opnion Suggestion: option
----------------
flaws:
the arguments are not right on the point. Here goes a sample:
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: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 1939 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.921 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.605 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.216 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.58 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 105, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ugh to indicate that this kind of movie is satisfying people. For instance, if the number of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 237, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
... part of that review may have come from a small number of movies and may not represent the genre ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, well, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => 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: 2018.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12182741117 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77027172339 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.459390862944 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 623.7 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7146380273 57.8364921388 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.125 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.625 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.6875 5.70786347227 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.257865258955 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863923527935 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0907747437225 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164485890471 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0551891477168 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.