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 author writes about the opinion of a director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. In opinion of the director, to promote the movies they should increase the budget allocated for the next year. The argument here is unwarranted and lacks in providing the evidences. Let us discuss all the assumptions made by the director one by one.
To start with, the author states that according to the recent report from their marketing department, it is observed that the number of people attending Super Screen produced movies is less as compared to any other year. Here, the author does not provide the specific number of how many people the count is reduced? By 100, 1000 likewise. The author fails to give an exact number of audiences to put his point forward.
Further, The author says that despite of less number of audiences than previous year, there are some dedicated audiences who have given a positive review for the Super Screen produced movies. Also, the author states that those reviews in favor of the production company are due to the quality of movies. But, the author fails in giving the reasons by which factors the quality of the movie is compared with? How many people reviewed it? Not only the good parameters but also the bad parameters of any movie are defined by the viewers. Therefore, it should be the audience's decision of determining the quality of their movie.
Lastly, the author put forwards his point as the main problem lies not only in the quality of Super Screens movies but also with the public's less interest in a movie. If there are good qualities of movies then the Super Screens would have not decided to increase is budget next year. This point is completely implausible. Furthermore, the author suggests to increase the next year funding for the movies so as to increase the public's interest by investing extra money for the purpose of advertisement. Here, the author fails to tell by how much amount the budget needs to be raised? By 1 lack, 2 lacks etc.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the given argument lacks to provide the valid evidences and the assumptions discussed above are implausible. This conclusion is abstract and misleading as he has not considered other factors which might affect the reduction in the number of people attending the movie. He should consider the data with more specifications like number of movies released, number of people attending the movie, time at which the movie was released and many other factors. Therefore, to make the argument plausible to us, the author must include some more factors here.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 2105 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.752 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.448 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.458 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.813 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.458 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 191, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ng Super Screen produced movies is less as compared to any other year. Here, the a...
^^
Line 5, column 351, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he author fails in giving the reasons by which factors the quality of the movie i...
^^
Line 7, column 168, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...h the publics less interest in a movie. If there are good qualities of movies then...
^^
Line 7, column 405, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...se the next year funding for the movies so as to increase the publics interest by invest...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 607, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ds to be raised? By 1 lack, 2 lacks etc. In conclusion, I would like to say that ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, lastly, likewise, so, then, therefore, as to, in conclusion, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => 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: 2160.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87584650113 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51120323497 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451467268623 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.8235285189 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4583333333 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.25 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250272076887 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0669628390698 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0965245006409 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150886992866 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0649668916303 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.