The author, the advertising directior of the Super Screen Movie Production Company, argues that the company should allocate a greater percentage of their budget towards advertising as people are not aware of the quality of movies they produce. Stated that way, the argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this argument, the author reasons that according to a recent report, fewer people have attended screening of movies produced by Super Screen although their reviews have increased in the last year. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credibility for the author's conclusion.
First of all the author states that, according to a report, fewer people have attended the screening of ther movies last year. Thus, coming to the conclusion that people are not aware of the movies produced my them. This is merely an assumption made without any solid ground. For example, did the reports consider the viewings from online streaming websites. In the current age of technology, because of companies like Netflix and Hulu, people can access the movies from their homes instead fo going out to a screening. Even Disney have identified this trend and recently started their own streaming service. The author should provide more information regarding such doubts to make the argument more valid.
Furthermore, the author points out that the percentage of positive reviews of Super Screen produced movies have increased in the last year. But this does not justify why people should watch Super Screen produced movies. This is a weak and unsupported claim that does not demonstrate any correlation between the ratings of Super Screen produced movies and that of other movies from other production companies. To illustrate further, in the year of 2016, Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in The Wolf of Wall Street was considered to be his greatest performance till then. Nevertheless, he lost the battle fot the Oscar for Best Acting for Men to Mathew's performance in Dallas Buyer's Club. So, the point his even though DiCaprio's performance was his all time greatest at that point, there was other performance(s) better than him. So, the author needs to provide details about the comparison of the movie ratings that were screening at the same time.
Finally, the author concludes that the company should allocated a greater share of their budget towards advertising to have a greater reach towards the public. Even if we agree with the auhtor's opinions that the movies produced by Super Screen was on par on quality with other movies but still people did not watch them, even online, still carefull scrutiny of the conclusion raises some skeptical doubts. Can the company afford to raise their overall budget, or do they have to decrease the share of the budget for other categories? If the budget allocated to producing the movies is reduced in favor of advertising, can they expect to still achieve good reviews? Without the answer to these questions the reader will be leaft with the impression that the author's claims were more of a wishfull thinking than a substantitive evidence.
In conclusion, the auhtor's argument is unpresuasive as it stands.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 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: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2663 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.044 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.216 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 660, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... it provides little credibility for the authors conclusion. First of all the author ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, then, thus, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2720.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 528.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15151515152 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58793910937 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479166666667 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 827.1 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5720575414 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.333333333 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.625 5.70786347227 99% => 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 : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295863144862 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.084564589674 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100092959272 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15827000331 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102800872472 0.0628817314937 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.