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 memo argues that the Super Screen, a movie production company, should allocate a greater budget on its advertisement next year to promote their movies to the public. This recommendation is based on some assumptions which needs more explanations.
First, the author assumes that their marketing is ineffective from the reports which may make such assumptions implausible. Even though the author stated that fewer people had attended their movies during the past year, it is possible that this reletively fewer number might be insignificant. For example, if the company had many greatest hits in the past years and the last year's revenue did not reach such hits, the actual number of spectators and the revenues of the past year might not be in downturn. Moreover, let alone the fact that fewer attended to see its movies, if the whole industry was facing difficulties in the past year, Super Screen might not be having serious problems. Thus, without providing accurate statistics on the decline of spectatorship, the author's argument may lose its credibility.
Second, the author draws his conclusion based on the assumption that the few positive reviews are not influencing their prospective viewers. However, this requires further explanation. The author did not mention the actual percentages of the positive reviews and the percentage may be insignificant when presented without the actual number of the review. Furthermore, there are many factors that make the public to watch their movies. The promotion of the movies, the social atmosphere, accessibility of movie theater, distributor's situation and other factors may influence the spectatorship. Unlike the author's stance, the public's lack of awareness does not fully explain about their current situation.
To conclude, the author's argument that the Super Screen should raise their budgets to increase public's awareness on their movies is based on less reliable evidence. Without providing more credible evidence and statistics, the author's assertion is less likely to be convinced.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-06 | Sumaiya Mila | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | Shams Tarek | 46 | view |
| 2020-01-02 | jamaya8 | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | Yongrok_Jeong | 49 | view |
| 2019-12-10 | Opak Pulu | 16 | view |
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. 50
- Young people should try many different kinds of jobs or career before they decide the long term career of their life. 80
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing."During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than 89
- Getting advice from friends who are older than you is more valuable than getting that from your peers. 76
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors."Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food s 35
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 318 350
No. of Characters: 1698 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.223 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.34 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.766 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 132 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.534 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.087 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 376, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...est hits in the past years and the last years revenue did not reach such hits, the ac...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 771, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cs on the decline of spectatorship, the authors argument may lose its credibility. Sec...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 577, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tion and other factors may influence the spectatorship. Unlike the authors stance...
^^
Line 3, column 605, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nfluence the spectatorship. Unlike the authors stance, the publics lack of awareness d...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r current situation. To conclude, the authors argument that the Super Screen should r...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 227, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e credible evidence and statistics, the authors assertion is less likely to be convince...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, thus, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1731.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 318.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44339622642 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86251455147 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540880503145 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 522.9 705.55239521 74% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.1262834248 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.4 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.06666666667 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.209195079038 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636390786741 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841274160585 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135954879709 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0892591009117 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.