Home >> Gmatgre Argument Task Essays

The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any o

Essay topics: The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.

According to a recent report by 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 last year. Clearly, the content of these reviews is not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not in the quality of our movies but with public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater quantity of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising.

amir_ow's picture

The author of the argument failed to convince us that The super Screen Movie production company should allocate a great deal of share of its budget next year for advertising. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumptions and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact that renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.

Firstly, the arguer mentions a recent report that provides evidence that the percentage of people attended the movies was less than any other year. At first, it may sound convincing, but it is not. Other factors may have a voice in this issue. First of all, what if the report was wrong? Or even the people who gathered the necessary information made a mistake? the fact that the author fails to provide detailed information about the report renders it necessary to question his/her assertion. It is stated that fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies, but the author does not mention to what extent they were less. What if last year a thousand people attended the company's movies but this year only 999 people attended. The used term is vague and thus unconvincing. If the author had provided more scrutiny and detailed about the report, the argument would have been more strengthened.

Next, the author made a flimsy assumption about the contents and the quality of the movies, produced by the company. to elaborate on, the author mentions that reviews are positive about specific movies, but the contents are not reaching to viewers. A huge conclusion is made based on little evidence. To elucidate on, the author mentions "specific" movies. What if those movies are not the ones that suit the majority of viewers interests? What if the reviews are not about the quality of the movies, but the plot of the screen and the general story behind it? With the advance of the media in the last decades, the accessibility to all kinds of information about a subject has been much easier. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the information or the reviews about a specific movie would not reach the viewers in time. in addition, What if the contents of the movies had become obscene to the viewers in the past year? Therefore fewer people are inclined to such movies. If the arguer had included more detail and information about the reviews or the contents, the argument would have been more consolidated.

Last, the author concludes that more budget should be allocated to the advertising of the movies. It is acceptable that proper advertising helps the company to thrive and increases the viewers. But making such a big conclusion based on little information is all but faulty. When making decisions, one has to determine all other factors, with a systematic and a general scope. Simply put, other coincidences, economic welfare of people, political issues in the society, all have a voice in such fluctuations. Therefore, one has to view such a phenomena from different angles to come up with a conclusion. If the argument had included other factors mentioned, it would have been more sound and promising.

All in all, based on substantial assumptions and poor evidence, the arguer's reasoning fails to provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had included the items discussed, it would have been m

Essay Categories: 
Votes: 
Average: 5 (1 vote)
More essays by this user:

Pages

Extensive reading & listening: - reading & listening can help essay writing
GMAT / GRE practice test:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 363, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...e necessary information made a mistake? the fact that the author fails to provide d...
^^^
Line 5, column 118, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: To
...of the movies, produced by the company. to elaborate on, the author mentions that ...
^^
Line 5, column 836, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...ie would not reach the viewers in time. in addition, What if the contents of the m...
^^
Line 5, column 936, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...bscene to the viewers in the past year? Therefore fewer people are inclined to such movie...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 541, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a phenomenon' or simply 'phenomena'?
Suggestion: a phenomenon; phenomena
...ations. Therefore, one has to view such a phenomena from different angles to come up with a...
^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, as to, in addition, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2739.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 547.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00731261426 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82510835109 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427787934186 0.468620217663 91% => OK
syllable_count: 858.6 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 6.0 0.471057884232 1274% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7652393219 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.59375 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.09375 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.78125 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175898044215 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0431362492943 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620764528846 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0908508633806 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740396223667 0.0628817314937 118% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.48 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.

---------------------

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.

Pages