The note presented by the Advertising Director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company states that there are a decrease in attendance and popularity of the movies on the last past year. Despite the fact this statement comes from an important job post in the company, it is based in a report with no evidence or specific data which would allow this assertion be not considered unwarranted.
In this case, the mistakes begin already in the first phrase, in that the director states that “fewer” people attended the movie’s company, it doesn’t mention any number or percentage. This also doesn’t have any other report comparison from previous years, which would be very important to evaluate how many individuals the company lost in audience. Also it is crucial to know in a study of public viewers, the location this survey has undergo, if it was with a certain age range or even if it was about just one movie. All those aspects matter to construct a study background for post analysis and formulate a report hence it is possible the company conducted the survey for the first time and have no clue on how to derivate results from it.
Further, this information’s omission turns to happen again in the second phrase that he mentions the percentage of positive reviews increased during the past year and continues in the next line concluding that it is not reaching prospective viewers. In this case, there is another flaw because if there are more reviews it could mean that the audience is becoming more cinephile and critical or they were just not giving reviews before and now they want to spend more time doing so. Since it is not possible to accurate these numbers and there is no percentage in the note, it passes the impression of unreal data due to its controversial compilation and pertains to ambiguity. The statement should specify this approach with numbers, showing the previous reviews and correlate with the current scenario.
Therefore, in the note is also stated that the problem is not the quality of their movies but the public’s lack of awareness of good movies available and consequently the company should allocate greater budget next year to larger the public’s reach. Similarly to all assumptions before, his conclusion is similarly unfounded due to the absence of data. The author established his judgment without trustworthy statistical information and advised wrongly Super Screen Company, so according to me the recommendation is unreasonable.
- The following is from a recent email by the Diord Corp. Human Resources l\Ianager: "Tobor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days. Tobor amended its employee insurance p 55
- Governments are justified in circumventing laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security. 50
- The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 56
- Argument Topic: "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 34
- "The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition." - Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or dis 83
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
----------------
here goes a sample:
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: 13 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2030 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.903 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.67 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.846 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.374 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 376, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...dividuals the company lost in audience. Also it is crucial to know in a study of pub...
^^^^
Line 3, column 462, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'undergone'.
Suggestion: undergone
...c viewers, the location this survey has undergo, if it was with a certain age range or ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 261, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...year to larger the public's reach. Similarly to all assumptions before, his conclusi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, hence, if, second, similarly, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2115.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13349514563 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92583068568 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543689320388 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 705.55239521 95% => 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
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 43.7780848149 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.692307692 119.503703932 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.6923076923 23.324526521 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.76923076923 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.239649547421 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0789051360488 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0828077245678 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147385054692 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0736063180708 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.39 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.