Topic: The following is 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 director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company (SSMPC) states that due the decreasement of people attended to SSMPC past year and the percentage increase of positive reviews by movie viewers about SSMPC the same year, there should be greater share of its budger next year for advertising to reach the public. He states that people are not aware that movies of good quality are available and this results in a decreasement in visitors. While the argument sounds plausible at first glance, it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
First, the director is not clear in numbers. He says vague things like "fewer" and "percentage increase". It is not clear how many fewer visitors and how many more positive reviews there are. Maybe there is only a slight difference in number and there is no significant reason to increase the budget for better marketing. Maybe, it is a coincidence that during the past year there is a decrease in visitors and it is possible that the amount of visitors returns to its normal level the coming years. The author should answer questions about how many fewer people attended to SSMPC and how many more positive reviews there were.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough to gain more viewers. Maybe, this is not true and people have other reasons for not going to SSMPC eventhough they saw the positive reviews. Maybe they having a hard financial time, or there is another movie theatre in town that better fits their needs. If the author does not have any answers to these questions, there is no guarantee that allocating a greater share of its budget next year in advertising will increase its visitors.
Finally, the assumption is made that the problem is not with the quality of the movies, because of the positive reviews. But maybe there are other reasons people gave positive reviews. For instance, the food was great and the service was very good and people would give a positive review for that. The author needs to give a answer to the question what kind of positive reviews there were and what their content was.
In conlusion, the argument has some serious flaws and is not entirely logically convincing. The author should provide answers to the questions how many fewer visitors have attended and what the percentage increase of positive reviews is. There should be answers to the questions why people placed a positive review and if there are any other reasons why people do not attend to SSMPC.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company SSMPC states that due the decreasement of people attended to SSMPC past year and the percentage increase of positive reviews by movie viewers about SSMPC the same year, there should be greater share of its budger next year for advertising to reach the public.
Error: budger Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: decreasement Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: He states that people are not aware that movies of good quality are available and this results in a decreasement in visitors.
Error: decreasement Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Maybe, this is not true and people have other reasons for not going to SSMPC eventhough they saw the positive reviews.
Error: eventhough Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Maybe they having a hard financial time, or there is another movie theatre in town that better fits their needs.
Error: theatre Suggestion: theater
Sentence: In conlusion, the argument has some serious flaws and is not entirely logically convincing.
Error: conlusion Suggestion: confusion
---------------------------
samples:
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 425 350
No. of Characters: 2032 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.54 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.781 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.339 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.726 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
why are the given arguments
why are the given arguments not good?
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 324, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...view for that. The author needs to give a answer to the question what kind of pos...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, while, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2104.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95058823529 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56114809895 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.435294117647 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 653.4 705.55239521 93% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9347567574 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.2 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.75 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => 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: 0.132362017787 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0376602985838 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512108701642 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0815178513063 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659548855122 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.17 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 98.500998004 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.