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
The argument claims that, an increase in number of good reviews, even tho reduced number of viewers, directly proves that the quality of content is good. Authors conclusion is based on a assumptions that, attending crowed was a eclectic group of viewers whose criticism can be trusted. And as the review is positive production company should invest in advertisement. However the argument is lacking various details and evidence required to support authors claim. Thus author fails to convince the reader.
Firstly, “fewer people attended super screen-produced movies”, this quote is a dead giveaway that the production company is not good at their job. Enervating sales are typical indications that something is not working correctly. That clearly proves that the attending audience is already a fan of this production company. Hence a subjective analysis of the content cannot of confirmed. People already inclined to watch a super screen production cannot be considered a credible source for criticism.
Secondly, author does not provide any statistics regarding the decrease in amount of viewers. Author conveniently omits to provide any information regarding the past reviews of the company. How much of an increase was actually there in the review is not known. Hence this increase in good reviews cannot be considered as a valid metric to base business decisions upon.
Finally, as author concludes he claims that the reason for lac of viewership in the production company content is because of lack of advertisement. This claim is based on an assumption that people are unaware of the new released content. Author has no evidence that proves this assumption.
To conclude, the argument is flawed in magnitudes for the above mentioned reasons. To make this argument credible author needs to present evidence that supports his claims. A good statistical analysis will reveal the real reasons for increase in reviews and decrease in viewership.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-24 | Cynic | 43 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | nimesh94 | 42 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | mcmaster | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 59 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | a251ravind | 63 | view |
- 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 act 43
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1606 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.214 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.944 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.046 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 186, 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
...is good. Authors conclusion is based on a assumptions that, attending crowed was ...
^
Line 1, column 186, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a assumption' or simply 'assumptions'?
Suggestion: a assumption; assumptions
...is good. Authors conclusion is based on a assumptions that, attending crowed was a eclectic g...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 227, 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
... assumptions that, attending crowed was a eclectic group of viewers whose critici...
^
Line 1, column 368, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...company should invest in advertisement. However the argument is lacking various details...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ready a fan of this production company. Hence a subjective analysis of the content ca...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 262, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ually there in the review is not known. Hence this increase in good reviews cannot be...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1663.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 308.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.39935064935 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88965234174 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.529220779221 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => 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: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.660846368 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.15 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.127408911765 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369661955605 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0506499276089 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0668203547186 0.128457276422 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557982939752 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.