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.”
The advertising director of Super Screen Movie (SSM) suggests that more amount of budget should be allocated for advertisement to reach more public. His suggestion is based on some superficial assumptions; 1) Public are unaware of their movie- which is of good quality- according to him. 2) Movies are of good quality as the reviewers cited it as a good one. 3) public is very interested to watch their so-called good movies and other groundless assumptions as well.
Firstly, the director here assumes that the public is really interested in the genre of the movie they are screening, however, no researches are carried out to support the claim. An additional research is required about the public interested genre and the genre they are screening on their screens. Also, the research is to be conducted for the price of movies. It might be possible that other movie makers of the same genre are offering customers at a cheaper price with additional benefits.
Secondly, the director also assumes that the movie they are screening is of good quality based on some reviews of movie critics rather taking the opinion from moviegoers. It is possible that the reviewers liked the movie so they cited positively for the movie and public did not like the idea of the movie. Aso, as we all know about the public craze for celebrities, the actors who are employed in the movie might not be the favorite actors of the public which is not researched by the director. Also, he assumes that public unawareness is the only cause for its declined customers. There is a possibility that the public is aware but ignoring his movie as there might be a better movie in the theater at the same time ith publics' favorite celebrities. Spending a substantial amount of advertising based on incomplete research of director might be a great loss to SSM.
Thirdly, the director also assumes that public is so much interested to watch their movies, if his assumption is right though, other factors might have been involved for which they are not coming to watch movies. The price of tickets they are charging compared to their competitors offers they are providing, facilities they will provide to their customers as compared to others. Hence these areas are also not mentioned in the research of the directors and he jumped into the conclusion readily.
In sum, the suggestion by the advertising director of Super Screen Movie Production Company to allocate greater share for advertisement to reach the public is groundless. There are many areas to be researched before getting into conclusion. So, SSM should conduct a deeper research before the allocation of budget for advertisement.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2170 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.855 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.653 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.206 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'additional research'.
Suggestion: Additional research
...s are carried out to support the claim. An additional research is required about the public interested...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 865, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rch of director might be a great loss to SSM. Thirdly, the director also assu...
^^
Line 7, column 381, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... their customers as compared to others. Hence these areas are also not mentioned in t...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, well, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => 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: 2223.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97315436242 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7245860819 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438478747204 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 703.8 705.55239521 100% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0058031705 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.15 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.35 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => 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: 0.104474592592 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380987620069 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427317278684 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0642642529698 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0295352158392 0.0628817314937 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.