The above argument concludes that the Super Screen should allocate greater share of its budget for advertising in the coming year to reach the public. To support this conclusion, the author states various analysis of the trends of decrease in number of viewers in spite of higher percentage of positive reviews. The conclusion seems feasible at first glance, however, careful scrutiny reveals the assumptions and baseless premises that the author makes. Hence, the argument seems unsubstantial and needs further support.
First of all, the advertising director seems to make an assumption that the number of viewers depend on the number of people attending the movies in theater. The director should make conclusion based on the number of viewers rather than the attendees. It might have happened that many people viewed the movies at their residence. Thus, the director should consider the number of viewers, to arrive at the conclusion.
Further the author assumes that the lesser number of people attending the movies is due to the lack of awareness about the movies. This again is an assumption based on unsupported grounds. The director should consider other factors for comparison, like "Was there any kind of increase in the cost of tickets which many people could not afford?", "Do they get time out of their commitment for watching movies?", "Due to the advancement in technology due to which the movies are now available on telephones and televisions, which everyone can view at ease and affordable, was there any increase of viewers from these devices?". Director should thus provide tangible evidence about these factors to make the argument more convincing for the readers.
Finally, the author says there was a rise in the "percentage" of good reviews. However, actual number of good and total reviews is not mentioned. The author should answer doubts like "How many people reviewed the movie the previous year as well as the years before that?". Hence, credulous statistics of the reviews needs to provided. Otherwise readers might think of the argument being a result of wishful thinking of the author.
In conclusion, the author needs to provide additional premise on the above grounds and conduct a trustworthy survey for analysis before making a conclusion of rise in budget.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 371 350
No. of Characters: 1872 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.389 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.046 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.509 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.933 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.562 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 356, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...stics of the reviews needs to provided. Otherwise readers might think of the argument bei...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, so, thus, well, in conclusion, kind of, as well as, first of all, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1988.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 371.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35849056604 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38877662729 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87725212375 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.495956873315 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.5938193691 57.8364921388 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.444444444 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6111111111 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176373555745 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0474752944124 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537900091692 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0841447931471 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0513027129373 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.